Ce eo 
bs Sh 
Spe, 


bites %, 
a 
« 
ns 
at 
AN ? 
A? 
eee 
MeN. 


we 
We 
‘ 
‘ 
by 
4 


ie 

es 

P 
ry 
" 


PCS 


+ 
’ 
wie 


a ae er gS 
TW a 


+ 
’ 


tel, 
ne a 


* 
sho be ge 
4 i 


ty 4 ms 
ere 
é 


st 


A 
at. 
at 


Cae ot 


Bae 


wat, 4.4 


fy 


2 « 


ee es yt bes 





aoe ee Sore : : : , 7 ye pi ot: , eA Bee ee 3 ; Pox ; : Sn Ae sis 
sss Au eees ’ ae) 
Fae Faas gt of ee oD oft ass apa ae On : AARP OS 
Sei Led ya Get eae ata ih ebb pe ees 
eet: ‘ = +i yaw, Ee 
es ee ia age 


* DEC 7 1931 
g & 
SCLogicay sen 










Division ~ HOG LE 
Section . P&I 


ia? 
‘ 


fi 7 

; brad i } 

' 5 

fo tpi 7h sae 
ya) ne 






tit 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/conservationoffa00pope 


THE CONSERVATION 
ORS Cea AVL aY) 







* 
? 
= 


. 
’ 
= 
— 
a 
. 
=_— 
a 


ee rs 7 ° a 
- ; ey ~ 
— ce , = 


° 
’ 
~”_ 
fe 
a 
- 
fe 
‘a 
- 
o 
— 
- 
re 


' 
© 
— 
ae 
oe 
~. 


B.'s 
. 
+ 
psig ed me 
a 
— 
_ 
an 


I Ea 
a 
= 
ae 


. 
ae 


ae 





7 
— 
- 
~ 
’ 
a 
~—z 
= 
va 
— - 
“Sr, 
= - 
- ae 
—s- re 
» aaa 
=. - Po . 


Sains — 
ie 
ae 
“~< 
a 
‘ 
—— 
io ae 
—s 
=e 





* 
re 
= 
oe 
. 


THE CONSERVATI ON 


TR SRR OF PRIVEE 


” beS race) 


OB id 


FAMILY 






OR RS 
SZLOGICAL SEM 


BY 
PAUL POPENOE 





BALTIMORE 
THE WILLIAMS & WILKINS COMPANY 
1926 


CopyRiIcHt 1926 
THE WILLIAMS & WILKINS COMPANY 


_ Made in United States of America 


Published July, 1926 


CoMPOSED AND PRINTED AT THE 
WAVERLY PRESS 
EOR 
THE WILLIAMS & WILKINS COMPANY 
BaLtTmoreE, Mp., U.S. A, 


By PAUL POPENOE 


e 


APPLIED EUGENICS (In collaboration with 
Roswell H. Johnson) 


MopERN MarriAcGE: A Handbook 


THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 







,; eat ta AY 
s Lier og 
hi ta A aay! nai 
~ me ee 
‘ Saat ae CAD Cis ( 
TNA a Wael ee 












U ¥ 
i » 













\ 
\ at t, +h 
’ + { 
: a Eee 
a* : Be : ; ae! | rast AS, . vets Pas > 
ct er! Lay dk ae é he Dae MK oO Ge eee ae «ice 
a ? ‘ ‘ ¥ 4, x 7 a at V es | i a ae , ati io ont hoe 
>" a t ‘are : , Reel ss Pee eR Pernt = » ae Pet te a | “ oy are 
aeLe TO A y pit Say Ra Ag ex Mate iP) shinee | Han peony ‘ 
eat: ’ i TE ae Wy eens, } Ve Wao VEE COR! AYER AE th TR cet ae 
} NY aa rei ; , * 4 Ga Ws yar! uty ay ai ee a 
ONE a ee Re at “ ch Lt Wik aia?) | EI ee ; cc 


x | ' Ny ay hy ‘ 1 ah ce bt \ 7 “ ot, thy mis PP fi ie ' Ray 








vi 
7 Pt 
fe ‘ 
~ ae \ 
WS ' 
Fi a H 
7 
re 4 
i ; ¥ 
fy ‘ } 
<3 ‘4 
ari p , 
J 7 
, ‘ ; y 
ha ‘ ; 
‘ 4 
yy 
é 
‘ 
- * x 7 
‘ ih 
a Aa r 
y us a \ 
Cn J 
i ig ‘ i 
‘ 
‘ 4 F 
} _ 4 ¥ M4 a 
‘ y 
7 rae td z 
‘ is 5 j 
‘ 
4 s 
Ne 4 : iva, : 
( en 
wad be 
J be 4 4 
’ f J 
é ES 
p, ii { iy 
‘ at PAT. P 
4 i le \ a’ 7) l 
j ie ee ie 
f i ar 
; 


* 
: 
: 
n> 
om 





‘a ae 


NE 
je 


YT 






CONTENTS 


BECP AR Tole cl eg a Dinin be AR ATT ee eNO PCE estate WE Telecast ake ee eretioke ix 


PAR UT 


THe NORMAL FAMILY 


PALE COMLUCUION pate tivtale Wi ef 5 ole fin ee Ries A Sais POI ols & Galea ee ae ee 3 

eens POPE NL ACIIION Sic iU' chris sre Wega etc be ee Menkes cao oes sae 

PRPC OC OLTAPNLALE Hs.) cette ote oc Roctarterd siviaie Dw oie eetele store ee Petes 23 

Md ESOC IRD ATICLIONS aac s alanis ie aire arise aloha otk bale lai adice cia mee ete 28 

ENUM DLOCLICUGI Hone chia sls okie 5 wicks Cie bo e's dice tials Eta oman ec Rtaee Ras Ie) 

DMPUTICLIC OCR ea te silt Ce hee roe Ge Cathe wlele gins a Did ata: dearaiahcletae waters 39 
PART II 


CONDITIONS THAT INTERFERE WITH THE NORMAL FUNCTIONING OF THE FAMILY 


ENELOUUCHOU Sm Manet oe. Wee Wed A PEMA Cope ee salen tevin vias 47 
De CHMAGC VEATCH LNG ASCOLIC LOE... ecile slgale sacl y levee oc si cletw ito pncate alate 48 
MME Fees AU LUCODUINENCE, Lit ssc sty oeie eis estz pie Wis. oe cites aise ee 56 
Ped emeeeLAVERINTATEAGC AUR tke oh Slcicire'e Sy Wiaisie(¥. siete esp ohm aaa 68 
IVI OR CTL ELOIMICS ec Pte erie te ali incp ike vipiete obit en cla atestele «ebro aa tne tis (2 
eR TOSLILE LION rte nie ce at cate Vie sea atari ne a Ree aie ea Seis shel ohn See eae 84 
WME VCOCTEAUITISCASESS G1 eee hare tele ve pik ne cin wie deisdia oa eis eieln ete e Wave 91 
POPP RELITOLCLULY Wie Rte acre, Soe ou SRR AU tions lie atlas lel are dard aay 96 
REEL CHAeEIAAC Vee kg Sie oe ta teu ah ene sh Nw bial ofe'a.c ats oe o diare Wein nse ela tals 100 
MPL GE CIQTU Parco Was sie a bie A ai che sate lina, TdW e) oite-», elaraieis Meee Melee dleserale 113 
X. Inadequate Reproduction in Superior Families.............e0e0: 125 
XI. Excessive Reproduction in Inferior Families..........cescccesces 137 
PART III 


MEANS OF SOCIAL CONTROL 


MET IUCEION State oi 2 ctese oe TI eae Ore kOe SALES Tip inele Selbia meres 157 
DARTS LIOU Elo tce, Varin tino! o'alalate peters a eve o's a cs Cn kc TUS ere 165 
DUMACREE TALE TPS LIYIOVEL 01s tev es aha Ue 9 teste ay a al three hata ee fo af ele le blaa WR ew oe be ae 187 
Pet Me SeOTIOTC ATS CLOTTING vGry ie) cir. oreediic Wo ona) vee MOP tye ee ik stems sale le's 205 
DP Sorento WIPANIZALION fs cae aa gh oielale Soha oly Claes pa eres ae ies 221 


vill CONTENTS 


PART IV 
CONCLUSION 
‘The Changme Home... «'s'<<s 1= Wd Sota Wh Gul ad eieecetaa entra Fe oe e 245 
List OF REFERENCES. .ccccccecs be ialsld deta e'ne'e € pie wind ate tts chs are ene 255 


INDEX. oc ce bua’ Coane scoleee Unies tes dcalewaes eeeeoeevoeevo0e ee ee ee ates 259 


PREFACE 


This book is the complement of my Modern Marriage: A Hand- 
book (New York, 1925). In the latter volume I pointed out some 
of the things that an individual can do to make his marriage more 
successful. ‘The present book considers mainly the things that 
an individual can not do for himself, and which society must do 
forhim. ‘The two lines of approach are necessary to get a balanced 
view of the subject. 

In preparing this volume, I have profited by suggestions from 
many friends, particularly Dr. Thomas H. Haines of the National 
Committee for Mental Hygiene; Professor Roswell H. Johnson 
of the University of Pittsburgh, my collaborator in Applied 
Eugenics; Dr. John M. Cooper, associate professor of sociology at 
the Catholic University of America; Dr. Louis I. Dublin, stat- 
istician of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; and my 
former colleagues on the staff of the American Social Hygiene 
Association, especially Dr. M. A. Bigelow, Miss Mary A. Clark, 
Dr. M. J. Exner, Dr. Thomas W. Galloway, Mrs. G. R. Luce, 
Dr. Valeria H. Parker, Miss J. B. Pinney, and Mr. George E. 
Worthington. But no one except myself should be held responsi- 
ble for anything presented in the following pages. 

The section on Illegitimacy, first presented at the annual meeting 
of the Eugenics Research Association, June 16, 1923, was printed 
in the Journal of Social Hygiene, December, 1923, and I am in- 
debted to Mr. Ray H. Everett, managing editor of that publication, 
for permission to use it here. 

PAUL POPENOE. 

Coachella, California. 





% “y 


je : ) DEAD AEA Se ‘ 
rm 7 # ) cag 4 ity LS 17 ; : cul a, be, us a aN ee 










7 - 4 we 
< y ae. hf 
\ t vse 
‘ 4 s 
i Tht rit « io *: ine ey 
ae | i . ‘ 
, ; 1 
i . | Ld 4 ’ ‘ A, 
' \ — - 
’ * 
. af a ul \ PAS i he Pas! 
: ; ; Py 
4 4 ha 5 r®, 
‘ td hae, Cid ee 4 i mi | i . Si hw - 
Pe te 5 vom tu Fae 2 ‘ i be PRET vg ae any 


5 ; ; “Thy ty Gr Ua ta haa § ia ap, ot 


yar i ont t 1 
e agi *\ 


sire 
iid ae “tha & f 
3 *F- ar *y sti: 
, ef tee mt 
a wh 
+ 






\ : ay ae ; we R r a) 4 ‘i ia ie wn Leh ful tye ee 
ye Sea. St matte eal WU, 0) Ye nay re tay 2) pe aye aa Ae A a tag! We es ity Pit: 
; ’ 7 f ' ; . 5" ~ ce] ’ 7 ¥ i At 





x { 
, re aU MAbs 
Af ” ‘ 
P 7 * r 4 Pa ay 
; r « oh) ‘Ck i 
uy ee , oe Pe dN 
= 2 ‘ i I 
y y + 
. i on, ee ha é eG as Mh BY Malls 
Py iy! ’ % ity } : 
. i Pik . oa 
“e ) ) AL he 4 
ve wg , J 
bay — = bP 4 
r S| 
‘ | MLR on: cae we 
\ . , 5 b H 
. } ‘ i f 
i, : { ‘ 
} mt Ley 7 Wh AAS 4 
ty ey gtr) AD 
MA TA aN ety Pal “fy f 
| me 1 poe CR ER 
P A , i 4 1 ay el | 
! ’ iv H a, i 
\ f é = re ey ae ’ 
sé ‘ a 
it JAY e)- ' ‘ Le 7 
¢ F i pi » 7 lal 
ie 4% y ¥ 
, Ds { } 
; 
, ; 4 . La i 2 i a ae 
* we 
- i i 4 sive si, 
vi eye? fag oe 
\ 1 ’ 1 
f Y thes Ae 4 
VhoN ; ia? BL eae WARE 
oy Zz A i 
a ; 4 he a \ 1 lee Oe 
ile fn 4 a Ay or me Le 
. or ; bei tu) 4 De he 1G 
‘ i tty 5 ie 
J ‘ > WG 
' bi ; 
i ’ \ ‘ i ; FP / 
+ 5 
j ¥ ‘ed NP - a 
* ‘ NM Y Atal te 
‘ nig + . ee i% 4 k Ome. 
{ hee le in Sa 
F Vali “ Po ie Aha: { e 
or ‘dee ee a ty bee 
Uh a et it 
WW ae Ay Miaaty 
: : 
i iP 
' 
’ ie 
b q ‘i 
i 
. 
« | 2, 
: a 
- tein e 
bu ( ‘. ; 
, “ 


PART I 


THE NORMAL FAMILY 


a 





vend. 


AV’ sete 
1s wee 
i 


vo 







INTRODUCTION 


Monogamy, with its ideal of life-long union of a man and a 
woman for their mutual benefit and for the production of children, 
has too long been taken for granted, particularly by the normal, 
law-abiding people who adopt and adhere to that standard, and 
who make up the great bulk of the population. They think it 
need not be examined critically. Some of them think it should 
not besoexamined. ‘They react to discussion in a purely emotional 
way. 

Meanwhile, those for whom the old sanctions have no force are 
criticizing it unmercifully and, because of their lack of any sound | 
basis for criticism, destructively. They themselves fully believe 
that they are the progressive and scientific members of the com- 
munity, and that those who cling blindly to monogamy are old- 
fashioned, non-progressive, behind the times—mid-Victorian, 
indeed! 

The extremists on one side are as irrational as are the extremists 
on the other. Debating, as each does, largely from prejudice and 
emotional bias, it is not surprising that they disagree, and that 
their disagreement is becoming greater all the time. 

Why this uncertainty, about one of the oldest and most far- 
reaching problems of life? Are there no facts from which one may 
induce sound principles for guidance—whether one accepts the 
argument of authority, the sanction of religion, or not? 

Certainly there are,—plenty of them: facts perfectly familiar 
to biologists, though evidently little known to many others. 

The confusion exists, in the first place, because the problem 
has been looked at piecemeal; because instead of seeking for the 
principles involved, reformers have seized each on a small frag- 
ment of the whole, and tried to make off with it as his own prize. 
In the second place, many have forgotten that the whole question 
of the family is primarily—though by no means exclusively—a 

3 


4 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


biological question, and it has not usually been examined from the 
biological side. It is significant that there are few biologists 
among those who are crying out so loudly for the break-up of the 
old-fashioned home. 

Why is family life not oftener considered from the biological 
point of view? First, because biology even now forms a much 
smaller part of formal education than do religion, law, history, 
and economics. Secondly, because some of the normal biological 
features are particularly intimate, while some of the abnormal 
are unpleasant to contemplate. Discussion of both classes has 
therefore been taboo. But it-is now coming to be realized that 
the family can not prosper if it is thus shrouded in secrecy and be- 
fogged with mystery. This book is intended as an elementary 
introduction to the subject, for readers who have not previously 
approached it on this side. While it can touch only a few of the 
salient points, since a complete discussion of so large a topic would 
require many volumes, it attempts to present the fundamental 
biological data, together with some data that belong to other 
sciences but are here regarded from a biological point of view. 

As soon as the family is studied biologically, it is seen to represent 
an evolutionary adaptation for the benefit of mankind. It is 
therefore no more out of date than is man’s habit of walking 
upright, which is likewise an evolutionary adaptation for his 
benefit. 

True, mankind is not perfectly adapted to monogamy. It is not 
perfectly adapted toanything. Itis certainly not perfectly adapted 
to walking upright. Hernia is the best known of the disabilities 
entailed by the standing position, but stooped shoulders, flat feet, 
and a score of other handicaps are likewise results of this “un- . 
natural” mode of locomotion. But no one argues, because of 
these real disabilities, that mankind should stop trying to walk 
upright, and return to all-fours, or walk on its hands, or wriggle 
along on its belly. Common sense recognizes that the upright 
position is now an essential part of man’s nature, and uses every 
effort to compensate for defects, to remove disabilities, and to 
make the upright position as efficient as possible. 


INTRODUCTION 5 


When common sense becomes a little more prevalent in dis- 
cussions of marriage, it will necessarily take a similar attitude. 
It will recognize that man’s intelligence and ingenuity are to be 
exercised in conforming to monogamy, just as in conforming to 
the upright posture. A person who asserts the necessity of experi- 
menting to find some form of mating better adapted to human 
nature will be regarded in the same way as one who would proceed 
down Broadway on his hands and knees, in the hope of finding 
in that way a better adjustment to his inborn tendencies. 

To push the illustration a little farther, there are those who have 
to wear trusses, or to undergo operations for rupture; there are 
also those who have to travel in wheel chairs or on crutches. They 
are not looked on, however, as the bold, emancipated, progressive 
leaders of the race, but are pitied as defectives who are unable to 
enjoy the advantages of normal health. In the same way there 
will always be husbands and wives who can not measure up to the 
normal standard, and who will require clinics and divorce courts; 
who even with the help of these will not find happiness. But no 
one will suppose that they are showing the world something better 
than it already has, or that their deformed natures represent 
Emancipation and the Progress of Evolution. 

In short, monogamy is one of the biological foundations of 
society. Many of the excrescences of a legal, social, religious, or 
economic nature, which the ignorance of ages has plastered on this 
biological foundation, should be removed. I am wholly in sym- 
pathy with the proposal to remove all such excrescences that have 
outlived their usefulness, or that never had any. Obviously, I 
could not enumerate and discuss all these details without swamping 
my central thesis, which is that the biological foundations of 
society, solid and relatively permanent, must be safeguarded care- 
fully at the time that this top-hamper is being cleared away. 

Most adults have a pretty good idea of what the family now is, 
and I have therefore dealt with that topic only incidentally. It 
can be understood best in the light of its historical development, 
and there are fortunately some excellent works on this—not only 
monumental ones like those of Edward Westermarck, Ch. Letour- 


6 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


neau, and G. E. Howard, but others better suited to popular con- 
sumption, such as that of Willystine Goodsell. 

Part I is a review of some well-known facts concerning what the 
family ought to be; or, to use the language of biology, it is an 
examination of conditions which exist when the institution is 
adapted most effectively to human nature and to the progress of 
evolution. 

When one inquires what, in modern civilization, is a normal 
family, it must be recognized that each will answer according to 
his point of view, and that the definitions given by the lawyer, 
the clergyman, the department store advertiser, the politician, 
the physician, the census enumerator, the poet, and the evolution- 
ist, will differ notably. 

From the biological point of view adopted in this book, the 
normal family may be defined briefly as one in which two adults 
live together happily and give birth to an appropriate number of 
healthy and intelligent children, whom they bring up to lives of 
usefulness. 

It is not possible to specify the number of children that make 
up a normal family, except by the use of a sliding scale. I shall 
point out that, on the average, four children from each marriage 
are necessary merely to keep the population from decreasing. 
This figure therefore represents the minimum in good stock; but, 
as I shall further show, a normal family in superior stock should 
contain more children than this; while in inferior stock fewer 
children are called for. Where both parents are defective, there 
should be no children at all, and yet the family may be called 
normal with relation to the germinal character of the adults who 
compose it. 

Pari toes on to consider some of the obstacles to the normal 
functioning of the family—particularly those that are more or less 
biological in character. Part III takes up in a more general way 
the question of how society can make the family what it ought 
to be. 

In a book of this type, it is not possible, perhaps even not desir- 
able, altogether to avoid seeming dogmatic. If an author should 


INTRODUCTION 7 


discuss fully every debatable point, and set forth adequately the 
evidence on which he has reached each of his conclusions, he would 
produce a chaotic encyclopedia that would attract readers as little 
as it would publishers. In this instance, the subject is fortunately 
one on which there is no lack of public discussion, and on most 
phases of it every reader will have at least some ideas of his own. 
He may compare these with mine, and hold to those that suit him 
best. In any case it will be clear, I hope, that I am less interested 
in enforcing any particular conclusion, than in having the family 
studied more generally from a biological point of view. 

I have thought it more useful to outline the general principles 
involved, than to risk bewildering the reader by piling up statistics 
or narrating series of individual cases. My belief is that, to a 
large degree, the difficulties in which the family now finds itself 
are due precisely to the fact that isolated and individual cases 
have been multiplied and held up to astonish the public, until 
sight has been lost of the broad underlying facts and principles. 

I have no short-cuts to suggest, no panaceas to offer, not even 
exact, final solutions,—for there are none. The causes of the 
trouble in which the American family is now involved can be 
reached only by a thoroughgoing analysis, and they can be removed 
only by innumerable readjustments. Back of everything else 
is the need of education. 

My discussion is based on the existing social and economic 
organization of society. Undoubtedly this organization will 
undergo some change, as everything else does, in the future, but 
it would be quite out of the field of this book to speculate on that 
point. If the United States should abandon the r2gime of private 
property and competition, and convert itself into a c “nerative 
commonwealth, or a dictatorship of a superman, or a dic ‘atorship 
of the proletariat, some details of this discussion of home life would 
have to be changed, but I believe that the broad principles would 
remain unaltered. But as the present book is tied to reality, it 
could not well proceed on any other basis than that of society 
as it now exists. Many writers have undertaken to describe what 
a family would be under one of the Utopias, and there is no objec- 


8 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


tion to such an exercise of the imagination; but one of my objects 
in this book is to show that it is not necessary to await the creation 
of a Utopia, to have a satisfactory family life; that it can just as 
well be had here and now, with relatively little effort, if people 
really want it. 

The family is, in fact, the oldest institution in existence. So 
far as one can guess intelligently, it has changed surprisingly little 
in 500,000 years. Often called the foundation of society, it justifies 
this name by the contributions it makes to (1) the perpetuation 
of the race, (2) the security of the state, (3) the happiness of the 
individual, (4) the education of the population, and by economic, 
social, religious, psychological, hygienic, esthetic, and other con- 
tributions that have varied with different ages but are always 
important. 

In the face of all this, it might seem that the family is the one 
indispensable institution without which civilization can not pro- 
ceed; and in the face of its history, it would be surprising if the 
changes in the form of civilization during the last four or five 
generations had so altered the human race as to make the family 
no longer a necessary institution. 

Compared with the family, all other social and economic institu- 
tions are recent. None of them has been subjected to experiment 
and selection, none of them has been validated by the results of 
this experiment and selection, to anything like the same degree 
that the family has. The monogamous family may therefore 
be expected, @ priori, to be much more stable and permanent than 
any other existing human institution. 


J. TYPE OF MATING 


What type of mating works best? There are plenty of types 
to choose from, not only in history, but in every-day life. It is no 
exaggeration to say that every conceivable form of human mating 
has been tried at one time or another, by some part of the human 
race. | 

The fact that there are approximately equal numbers of boys 
and girls born points to monogamy as the “‘natural state” of man- 
kind and also makes it improbable that men are, as is often alleged, 
polygamous by nature while women are monogamous. 

A thorough examination of all forms of mating from the evolu- 
tionary point of view would be tedious and unnecessary here, but 
it will be worth while to consider briefly some of the more im- 
portant, which I will classify loosely under four heads as (1) 
promiscuity, (2) free love, (3) polygamy, and (4) monogamy. 


PROMISCUITY 


1. Although some earlier writers imagined a state of primitive 
society in which mankind lived as a promiscuous horde, with no 
family organization of any kind, children being cared for by the 
group as a whole, it is now generally agreed that such a picture 
has no basis in fact. There is not now and so far as history dis- 
closes there never has been any tribe which lived in such a manner. 

Even the higher anthropoid apes have a more or less monoga- 
mous family, which lasts beyond the time needed for the offspring to 
become self-supporting. Sometimes, it appears, this is varied by 
polygamy, one male having two or more females. If any inference 
at all is justified, concerning the “original” state of man at the time 
he emerged from apehood, one might suppose that it was something 
like that now found among the anthropoids. 

The rudest and least progressive savage peoples at the present 
time are not promiscuous but, on the contrary, much more nearly 

9 


10 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


monogamous than are many tribes somewhat higher in culture 
(John M. Cooper). From this and other evidence it has been in- 
ferred with some plausibility that the “original”? custom of man- 
kind was a more or less close approach to monogamy; that this 
tended to break down to some extent as an increase in civilization 
began to interfere with the natural operation of the human instincts 
(although monogamy has been the standard of at least the bulk 
of the population in all historic times); and that, with a further 
increase in civilization, marriage customs tend to swing back to a 
stricter monogamy, as at present. 

Not only is there no evidence that any people has ever been 
wholly promiscuous, but there is presumptive evidence against 
the success of any such experiment. It seems likely that such a 
state of affairs would be so favorable to the spread of venereal 
diseases as to exterminate the population, by sterility or death. 
If venereal diseases were not in existence, the almost continual 
pregnancy of all females, without any feeling of individual responsi- 
bility for their care on the part of the males, would impose a severe 
handicap on the tribe; while if this pregnancy were avoided by 
abortion, as it is in some peoples, disease and sterility would be 
likely to spread widely. In any case, the tribe would be at a dis- 
advantage in competing with any neighbors who had a better social 
organization, and would therefore tend to disappear. 

It is scarcely necessary, however, to speculate on the results 
of a system of general promiscuity, since it has never been known 
to occur among men. 

Indeed, promiscuity is by no means universal even among the 
lower animals. Some sort of a family (either monogamous or 
polygamous) that lasts at least beyond the time of mating is 
found among whales, seals, hippopotami, many of the deer 
family, squirrels and some other rodents, and a few carnivora, 
not to mention monkeys. Among birds, life-long monogamy is the 
rule (with a few exceptions); some birds will not even take another 
mate if the first one dies. These facts have no direct bearing on 
man’s case, but they do show that some sort of family life has been 
found advantageous under a variety of different circumstances, 


TYPE OF MATING 11 


in the animal world, and that the family is, therefore, no mere 
recent and “artificial”? invention of the human race. 


FREE LOVE 


2. A modification of promiscuity is the theory, held in manifold 
forms and designated by various polite and impolite names, which 
is best known under the title “free love.” 

The distinction between free love and promiscuity can not be 
drawn sharply, but the theoretical difference is that promiscuity 
represents a sexual union without any lasting community of mutual 
interest, a mere satisfaction of passion; while free love represents 
the union of two persons who are attracted to each other by broader 
personal interests, and who wish to live together so long as mutual 
affection exists, but no longer. 

As in religion, each advocate of free love has his own particular 
cult, and it is difficult to group these for examination, but a large 
part of the views of free-lovers can be comprehended under the 
title given in Europe of “The New Morality,” the argument of 
which is that sexual relations are a personal matter, of no public 
concern, so long as they represent the mutual desire of the partners 
and do not end in the birth of undesired children. 

It would be hard to tell a bigger falsehood in so few words. The 
emotional forces tied to sex are so great that mating affects not 
only the two persons involved but, it might be said fairly, everyone 
else. Countless lives have been ruined, armies raised, peoples set 
against each other in war, cities pillaged and burned, and nations 
destroyed as the result of this temporary relationship between 
man and woman which seems, at the moment, so exclusively 
personal. 

In view of the emotional forces tied to it, and their possible 
consequences, the relationship is always of direct concern to the 
relatives and friends of the two persons who enter intoit. Itisalso 
of concern to the state in a variety of ways. 

If it results in progeny, the state’s interest is obvious. 

If it does not result in progeny, the state’s interest is different, 
but none the less keen. The question must then be answered, 


12 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


why is it not resulting in progeny? Are the emotional forces 
involved being employed to foster a family life, with its feelings of 
responsibility and altruism? Or are they being turned into in- 
dividualistic, anti-social channels? 

The keynote of relationship between the sexes is here being 
struck. Is it a purely selfish keynote? If so, and if that keynote 
is widely imitated, it will be hard to get an unselfish and responsible 
tone maintained when and where it is wanted and needed; for in 
this respect it is easy to lower one’s ideals, but harder to raise them. 
Much of the trouble of the modern family is due to nothing but 
the existence of this selfish keynote, developed either in irresponsi- 
ble, temporary matings, or in the atmosphere which such matings 
have produced. To say that the state should stand idly by and 
express no interest in the generation of these emotional states is 
nonsense. 

Even when applied personally rather than socially, the theory 
of free love at once runs afoul of two destructive snags—venereal 
diseases and pregnancy. ‘The theorists therefore usually find it 
necessary to project their dream into the future, admitting that its 
full realization awaits the day when these obstacles shall have been 
removed by science. 

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that they are removed. 
The theory still makes no headway, for a glance shows how spas- 
modic is its motive power, and how strong are the currents of 
human nature running against it. Such fundamental and scarcely 
alterable instincts or dispositions as mutual affection, parental 
feeling, and jealousy, will quickly drive on the rocks the ship that 
sets sails for this Utopia. 

It is easy to inveigh against these instincts as undesirable rem- 
nants of an imperfect stage of human nature. Without passing 
any judgment on whether they are such or not, one may be sure 
that they are at least not to be cast off like the cocoon of the 
caterpillar, as it emerges into the higher life of the butterfly. ‘They 
exist, and probably will continue to exist, for at least as long a time 
as they have occupied in getting implanted,—and that is a good 
many millions of years. In fact, they are probably much stronger 


TYPE OF MATING 13 


in the human species now than they were 100,000 years ago. While 
they continue to exist, the attempt to practice “the new morality” 
will continue, as it always has, to leave in its wake nothing but 
human happiness and inefficiency. 

Abundant experience shows that in most free love matings one 
partner, usually the woman, is abandoned sooner or later. If this 
regime were the rule, the result would tend to be that a woman, 
after devoting the best years of her life to a man, would find herself 
cast aside in favor of some younger and more stimulating partner. 
But even while the relationship endures, it isnot adequate. Mutual 
intercourse, even if permanent and intimate, does not bring about 
the most complete mutual understanding. The latter can arise 
only when a man and woman who are inwardly one live together, 
work together, create and bring up a family together, free from all 
need for secrecy, from all compunctions, and from the shadow of 
instability and separation. In the “free” intimacy, the partners 
usually expect constant stimulation from each other; whereas in 
marriage, after the first few months, no such demand is made, 
but the two settle down to explore the deeper recesses of each 
other’s natures, and to enjoy social amenities and life in common, 
animated by a sense of mutual perfect trust and of unconditional 
interdependence which arises in a happy marriage after some years 
duration, but can not, by definition, exist in a more transient 
mating. 

A favorite masquerade of free love is as trial marriage. Advo- 
cates of this frequently adopt an extremely unctuous attitude 
toward the production of children. It is a Very Serious Matter, 
they exclaim; it requires due preparation. It demands a har- 
monious home. A man and woman can not tell whether they are 
suited to each other, physically and mentally, until they have lived 
together for a time. ‘Therefore let the state legalize temporary 
unions, under Birth Control auspices, with divorce by mutual 
consent. In this way people would practice the elements of family 
life, until they became skilful and wise enough to find perma- 
nent mates and establish happy homes in which flocks of radiant 
youngsters might grow to maturity in an atmosphere of love and 
efficiency. 


14 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


Even a superficial analysis will show how little substance there 
is in this plea. I pass by the more obvious difficulties,—the im- 
possibility of guaranteeing that a union will be childless, except 
by recourse to the abortionist; and the difficulty of dissolving the 
union by “mutual consent,” which usually means the callous 
abandonment of one by the other. To make the question diagram- 
matically simple, suppose either (a) that the two persons involved 
take their relationship seriously, or else (b) that they do not. 

(a) If they take it seriously, if it represents to them a deep 
and peculiar emotional experience, then it is clear that it can not 
be terminated without producing corresponding effects on their 
personalities. Many people who have been through the divorce 
mill make good husbands or wives in a second mating, but he is a 
bold advocate who will attempt to prove that because of having 
been a partner in a broken home, they are able to put more happi- 
ness into, and take more happiness out of, a new marriage than 
is the man or woman who goes to a mate without any scars, any 
disillusionments, without the mental conflicts, the injury to self- 
esteem, the pessimism, and the bitter memories, that are a natural 
result of life for some time under the most intimate circumstances 
with a mate who was unworthy. 

(b) If, on the other hand, they do not take it seriously, if it 
represents to them a mere search for thrills, a selfish and casual 
episode, then it is obvious that it reveals a deficient education, a 
shallow character, which further indulgence will make still more 
shallow and defective, and which is a disastrous preparation for 
permanent and happy family life. Far from encouraging such 
persons to continue in this direction, society should make it as 
difficult as possible for them to do so. 

The plea that experience is desirable in order to demonstrate 
whether the partners are physically mated is hardly worth refuting. 
Physical compatibility is almost wholly a matter of education. 
Physical abnormalities that destroy the happiness of a marriage 
are rare, and can be discovered by a physician’s examination before 
marriage—it requires no free love mating to bring them to light. 

In other respects a trial marriage, or a series of trial marriages, 


TYPE OF MATING 15 


would not be a preparation for but a handicap to successful family 
life thereafter. All the evils of delayed marriage (outlined in 
Part II, Section III) then enter in. Many of the evils of pre- 
marital incontinence (outlined in Part II, Section II), also make 
themselves felt. One of the best tests of the merits of a proposal 
of this sort is to examine the histories of the people who now prac- 
tice it. Judged by that test, trial marriage is not a success. 

Everything that can be said against childless free love holds 
good with tenfold strength if it is proposed that free love matings 
result in children. Free lovers sometimes represent a selected 
class which has no interest in children, considering the reproduc- 
tion of the race a proper function of the Lower Orders or of those 
who are ‘“‘not smart.’’ Occasionally, when the Birth Control clinic 
and the abortionist have both failed them, they become almost 
sentimental in descanting on the Sacredness of Motherhood; but 
more frequently sterility due to chronic gonorrhea saves them 
from having to take this heroic pose. At other times, the parties 
start with the idea that they will not let children invade their 
freedom, and then one or the other awakens to the need of chil- 
dren, precipitating a crisis which is one of the common tragedies 
of free love matings. 

For the sake of clearness, the problem may be viewed from a 
slightly different angle by inquiring, why do people want to enter 
into a free love union, when they could just as well marry? ‘The 
reasons alleged are nearly always incomplete, and usually not the 
real reasons at all. But back of them all is what I believe most 
unprejudiced persons will admit to be the real reason, namely, the 
desire to avoid responsibility. If this is actually the fundamental 
reason that inspires a free love mating, it is evidently one which 
society cannot encourage. Irresponsibility is anti-social both in 
family life and in the other activities of existence. 

A defense of free love by means of an attack on monogamy as 
out of date has no scientific foundation. Some writers, recognizing 
this, have attempted a flank attack. A good example of these is 
H. G. Wells. Monogamy is the standard, he admits; it is the best 
in general; but there may be people who find something else— 


16 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


say bigamy—suits their own particular needs. These exceptional 
people should not be interfered with, since they get individual 
happiness by deviating from the standard, while their example 
can not possibly weaken, can not even threaten, an institution so 
strongly intrenched as monogamy. 

This point of view, which is shared with slight variation by 
many a Little Group of Serious Thinkers, does not permit its 
occupants to see far. Once they have admitted that monogamy 
is the standard, they have given away their whole position, for 
society can not authorize any marked deviation from a necessary 
institution. Push the argument a little farther. There are people 
—plenty of them—who are so peculiarly constituted as to find 
their greatest individual happiness in murder, arson, incest, high- 
way robbery, or rape. ‘Their plea of individual happiness is not 
admitted. Why admit it, then, in the case of free love? 

The answer offered is that those things concern others than the 
individual, while marriage concerns only the individual—or, more 
exactly, the two individuals involved. ‘This is so superficial that 
it should mislead no one. Marriage usually concerns children, 
and it always concerns society as a whole. Few persons are able 
to violate well-established social customs without suffering mentally 
as the result. Moreover, the young, the inexperienced, the adven- 
turous, the weak-minded are always too ready to follow an exam- 
ple, or to be carried away by arguments whose fallacy they can 
not discover until years later, after the harm has been done. An 
illustration of this is the girl who is taught at college that she wants 
a Career, and who only comes to her senses at the age of 30 or 40, 
realizing that she has made a tragic mistake but that it is then too 
late for her to remedy it by finding a home of her own. 

Not many will plead for “freedom” where murder, arson, incest, 
rape, or robbery is concerned. But because of the emotional 
complexities, and the wealth of conventions (some of them obso- 
lete) by which marriage is surrounded, some persons seem to 
think that anything is allowable in a discussion of matrimony. 
Indeed, they take the same attitude toward love that is enounced 
in another field of esthetics by so many contented critics: “I don’t 


TYPE OF MATING 17 


know anything about Art, but I know what I like.” It is high 
time that this attitude were abandoned, and the discussion of 
marriage kept on a scientific basis. When it is so kept, it will be 
seen quickly enough that promiscuity, whether dressed in its 
ancient and cruder or its more modern and more genteel forms, 
has no biological foundation. 


POLYGAMY 


3. Polygamy is found in two forms—polyandry, or the union 
of one woman with a number of men, and polygyny, or the union 
of one man with a number of women. Apart from prostitution, 
polyandry exists as a standard only in rare cases. It is obvious 
that a polyandrous society must decrease gradually in numbers, 
and probably become extinct; hence this form of mating has no 
permanent importance in evolution. 

When one speaks of polygamy, therefore, one usually means 
polygyny, which, after monogamy, has been the predominant 
form of mating in the human species. It produces an accelerated 
evolution in certain directions, but examination will show that 
these are only in part good. 

Not only is selection among women virtually non-existent, 
since they are in so much demand that nearly every female finds a 
husband; but this evil is intensified by the necessity, in most cases, 
of importing women from a lower group, to make up the desired 
number of plural wives or concubines. ‘Thus among the Arabs 
the importation of Negresses into the harem has probably been an 
important factor in the decline of the race (Paul Popenoe, 1923). 
The evil is intensified still further, if there is any ground for the 
doubtful conclusion of A. S. Parkes and others, that polygyny 
tends to result in a preponderance of male births; for thus the 
proportion of males would increase in each generation, and make 
the deficit in the number of available wives still greater. 

Among the men, on the other hand, there is usually a stringent 
selection for one quality only, namely, wealth; since the support 
of several wives is costly. The wealthy man can afford it; the 
average man must content himself with one wife, or go unmated. 


18 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


The children born are therefore predominantly the offspring of 
wealthy fathers; this means the perpetuation of some qualities 
that are desirable, some that are not so. 

The principal exception to this is among the poor, where women, 
rather than being objects of luxury, are drudges, and therefore 
assets. The poor man is benefitted by having as many wives as he 
can get, since they represent so much unpaid labor. This again 
does not mean the perpetuation of the most valuable racial strains. 

This source of labor is not open to the man of middle class, for 
his wives insist on being maintained “‘in the style to which they are 
accustomed.” The result is that in any polygynous society the 
actual proportion of men in the population who have plural wives 
is very small. 

In Muslim countries, however, unlimited freedom of divorce 
at the will of the man has brought about a condition of “serial 
polygamy,” which is by no means unknown in the United States. 
The man who can afford only one wife at a time can yet afford to 
discard her and take a new one, and he makes use of this privilege 
so freely that in urban communities the individual who has been 
married for any length of time, and who has yet had only one 
partner, is the exception. Men who have had 10 or 20 wives in as 
many years are not particularly rare! It is obvious that this 
tends to destroy family solidarity and continuity, and leaves a 
situation similar to that often found in a regime of free love. 

There is also a selection, particularly among young men, of the 
physical outlook on marriage, as opposed to what might be termed 
the romantic or idealistic. The man with plural wives is likely 
to be one who regards women as created for his convenience. 
The man with a higher appreciation of the personality of woman 
and the possibilities of happiness in marriage will take only one 
wife. Sometimes a woman with force of character and an enlight- 


1 Interesting light has been thrown on this point recently by Paul W. Harrison 
and H. St. J. B. Philby. The latter reports that up to 1920 Ibn Sa‘id, Sultan 
of Najd (Central Arabia) had had more than 100 wives (together with uncounted 
concubines); and, as he assured the author with an anticipatory smile, he is 
“a young man yet!” 


TYPE OF MATING 19 


ened outlook on life insists that her husband (especially if, as often 
happens, he is also her cousin) shall neither divorce her nor bring 
additional wives into the harem. In both cases, these superior 
monogamists leave fewer children to carry on their standards than 
do the Solomons. 

The result of these various selective factors is that polygyny 
tends to produce quantity rather than quality of children. 

Fortunately the results can be studied in nature; one is not 
obliged to depend on ratiocination. In a patriarchal and militant 
civilization, where the number of males was kept small by warfare, 
polygyny seems to have worked fairly well for a limited time. 
But the evolution of these societies on modern lines has invariably 
resulted in the virtual disappearance of polygamy, so that, in 
Turkey, Egypt, and other Muslim countries today, it has even 
been or is about to be legally outlawed, and has in fact been rare 
for a long time. 

Whatever may have been the advantages or disadvantages of 
polygyny in an earlier period, then, it is out of date now and needs 
no further consideration. 


MONOGAMY 


4, From what has been said, it will be evident that monogamy 
has, biologically, no real competitor. It represents an adaptation 
of the human race; it has survived and spread at the expense of 
other types of mating because it has been found more favorable 
to the needs and perpetuation of the race, and more nearly in accord 
with human nature, than have its competitors. 

As regards its effect on individual character, the testimony is 
generally favorable. ‘“The deepening of the sense of responsibility, 
the education of the individual in self-discipline, the development 
of patience and charity, the overcoming of selfishness, the preserva- 
tion of the emotional life from disintegration and from subjection 
to passing moods—these are elements of the inner life which may 
be described as absolute and permanent conditions of all high 
social culture” and can be maintained only under monogamy, says 
F. W. Foerster; while Anna Garlin Spencer remarks that “‘it has 


20 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


given man an ethical training in self-sacrificing, courageous, and 
persistent labor for the benefit of his group, and an institutional 
command of the resources of nature and of human capacity, which 
have proved invaluable to social progress.” The selfish, cynical, 
superficial type of personality, that is developed under more or 
less promiscuous regimes, is unfavorable to the progress of civiliza- 
tion. Only under an enlightened monogamy can it be avoided with 
certainty. 

Those who argue from the practice of primitive peoples overlook 
the fact that love is a more complex thing for civilized man than 
for the savage. Romantic love in particular is a relatively recent 
invention. Monogamy favors the exploration and development 
of this field, as promiscuity and polygamy do not. Observation 
and history show that the normal person finds full and well- 
rounded satisfaction of instincts (which means happiness) only 
in life-long communion with the object of love. The personality 
which falls short of this, and attempts to get satisfaction by a 
series of casual, selfish experiences, is nothing but a personality 
suffering from arrested development. It has not attained to 
adult stature, but has remained at the infantile level, when the 
whole world is valued in terms of the immediate gratification that 
it furnishes to one’s senses. (Cf. Part II, Section IV.) 

Considering the question from a wholly selfish point of view, 
but a different one from that described in the preceding paragraph, 
it is easy to see why monogamy has appealed to most men and 
women who have developed beyond the infantile stage. The 
man wishes to raise children only of his own begetting, and he 
desires to see the family traditions and possessions, oftentimes 
also his life work, continued in a secure, well-ordered way. He 
wants to avoid the loneliness or disquiet of bachelorhood, and 
at the same time it pleases him to call one woman his own and 
share her with no one. 

Monogamy offers woman the possibility of comparable advant- 
ages, even though (like man) she sometimes fails to get them in 
practice. So far as the ideal of relationship is concerned, she finds 
_ that her will is recognized publicly as equal to that of the man— 


TYPE OF MATING ot 


she is an individual personality, and not merely an inmate of a 
harem, much less a commodity to be bought and sold from day to 
day. She has a choice in the selection of her mate, and after 
marriage she monopolises that mate, not having to share him with 
others. If the mating is for life, the man is obliged to respect 
her will to a much greater extent than he would if she were 
merely one of numerous consorts, or if he intended to abandon her 
shortly. 

Such considerations as these, which might be much extended, 
explain why monogamy benefits man and woman from the narrow- 
est, personal point of view—taking no account of many broader 
influences which are in fact of great importance. If promiscuity 
represents the expression of an irresponsible, autoerotic, infantile 
type of reaction, unable to see beyond a small immediate gain to 
a much greater but slightly more remote gain, then it is fair to 
say that failure to be monogamous is not the act of a normal adult, 
but of one whose mind has not developed properly. 

As regards sexual selection, monogamy tends to favor the more 
substantial and permanent qualities, as against the more transient 
physical or financial qualities which have been found in every case 
to bulk large under a regime of polygamy or promiscuity. 

As regards the birth-rate, monogamy apparently tends to 
result more nearly in the production of a normal number of chil- 
dren than does any other system. It is especially favorable 
to the net birth-rate, that is, to the survival of children born, 
because each of them has two parents to watch over his physical, 
mental, and economic needs. 

As regards the quality of parenthood, there can scarcely be any 
serious argument. Monogamy is in a class by itself. The atten- 
tion of neither husband nor wife should be distracted from the 
family by any overwhelming emotional experience outside of it; 
because children need the care of both parents. So far, in the 
history of the family, the public pledge of fidelity between man 
and woman has served better than anything else to guarantee to 
children upbringing in a home where their interests are given proper 
attention, and their minds directed along the most useful lines. 


I) THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


Whatever temporary or incidental defects there may be in its 
operation, then, there seems to be no question about the general 
principle involved. Monogamy, when examined from a biological 
point of view, without regard to prejudices or conventions, is found 
to be the only type of mating suitable to modern mankind. 


II. CHOICE OF A MATE 


Improvement in the selection of mates will probably do more 
than any other one thing for the conservation of the family. 

It is popularly supposed in some circles that ‘falling in love” 
is capricious and determined by chance or some mystical force 
against which it is useless for human beings to struggle. Such a 
theory serves the purpose of romancers, but anyone who considers 
the question soberly can testify that marriage, at least, is usually 
preceded by a good deal of careful consideration on the part of 
both partners. 

Broadly, it has been shown by many students that people are 
attracted to each other by unlikeness in sexual traits and likeness 
in all other traits. 

It is the latter that makes largely for compatibility, and the 
basis of it exists to some extent even under the continental system, 
where marriages are arranged largely by the parents of the young 
people; and in the oriental system, where the bride and groom 
never see each other until after they are married. The relatives 
in each case try to pick out a mate who is “suitable,” that is, of 
similar rank and wealth, and this very fact tends to give the young 
people a common background which makes for harmony and com- 
patibility as they later become acquainted with each other. 

Much more can be done, however, through education of the 
young people themselves. The qualities desirable in mating 
may be divided into two groups, according as they refer primarily 
to the mutual relations of husband and wife, or to the endowment 
of their offspring. 


PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS 


Of particular traits that may be mentioned, age is generally first 
thought of. Everyone agrees that the husband should be a little, 


23 


24 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


though not too much, older than his wife. ‘Too great discrepancy 
in this respect is not only unphysiological, but interferes with the 
feeling of perfect comradeship that should exist in a marriage. 

In most cases the reproductive system matures between the 
twelfth and sixteenth years of life, and in the narrowest sense 
young people are ready for marriage any time thereafter. But 
it is not at all desirable that marriage take place until after physical 
development as a whole has been largely completed. Among 
white Americans, this occurs somewhere between the ages of 18 
and 21, in most cases. Mental development is still slower, and 
requires five or six years longer to reach its term. 

Other considerations agreeing, young people should marry soon 
after they complete their physical development, and before they 
complete their mental development. If marriage is delayed until 
the latter is closed, it commonly finds both personalities set in their 
ways, with a large stock of habits, and moving in a rut. They 
do not fit so well into married life, which requires a continual give 
and take—especially give. 

Imaginary evils of early marriage are delineated so often that 
it is worth while to look at the biological facts for a moment. 
From a eugenic point of view, early marriage in good stock is 
advantageous not only because the generations come closer to- 
gether, but because the fertility of women is greatest, shortly 
after the maturity of the reproductive system. The younger the 
wife at marriage, the smaller the percentage of wives who bear no 
children, and the larger the size of family. This holds good in the 
white race down to about the age of 15. G.D. Maynard, studying 
the New Zealand birth statistics, found that “if fecundity be 
measured by the percentage of women who bear children within 
24 months after marriage, the age of maximum fecundity for New 
Zealand wives lies probably between the ages of 15 and 20”; while 
in England the largest family seemed to be associated with mar- 
riage at 16, in Scotland at 18. 

Obstetricians have long observed that childbirth among young 
mothers is particularly easy and safe. A detailed study by John 
W. Harris, of the records of 160 white and 340 Negro mothers at 


CHOICE OF A MATE 25 


Johns Hopkins Hospital, all between the ages of 12 and 16, and 
bearing their first child in every case, led him to write: 


Based upon the study of 500 patients comprised in this report, it seems 
permissible to conclude that pregnancy and labor are attended by no greater 
danger to the young primipara than to older women. On the other hand, the 
duration of labor is actually shorter. As our figures show that the size of the 
children is not inferior to that noted in older women, and that abnormal pelves 
occur quite as frequently,! this result must be attributed to the greater elasticity 
of the soft parts. Consequently, speaking from a purely obstetrical point of 
view, the ages under consideration appear to be the optimum time for occur- 
rence of first labor. 


All this is not an argument for child marriage. The facts are 
presented merely to show that, physiologically, early marriage 
and childbearing are in many respects favorable to mother and 
child. Of course, the physiological considerations are by no means 
the only ones that count. Education can not be ignored. 

But education and other social factors must not be stressed to 
the point that the fundamental biological factors are ignored. 
From the latter point of view, it must be recognized that relatively 
early marriage (say any time after 18 for women and 21 for men) 
is advantageous. 

In both sexes, early marriage tends to remove the strain on the 
emotions which is imposed by a long period of celibacy, and which 
often results in damage to the personality. But it is particularly 
important to women—so much so that it is little less than a crime 
to advise girls to wait until they are 30 or more to marry, in order 
to enjoy life more fully, get a better preparation, or what not. 

Early marriage gives a girl a wider choice of mates. It results 
in early and less painful childbearing, with fewer stillbirths and 
miscarriages, more breast-fed infants, and fewer infant deaths. 
It is more likely to produce children that are vigorous, long-lived, 
and intelligent. It allows parents to space their children at reason- 
able distances and still have a family of normal size without ex- 
haustion of the mother. It is advantageous to the education of 


1 This means merely that “the white girl of 13 to 16 years has as large a 
pelvis as her older sister.” 


26 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


the children in the home. Finally, early marriage is normally 
favorable to the vigor and longevity of the mother herself. 

Early marriage is natural, and most young people would marry 
early if they were left alone, and enabled todoso. Butaman must 
support his wife: this means a paying job first, and this may not 
be reached for some years—if ever. Then there is the distraction 
of other interests and pursuits. Finally, there is wrong advice, 
of which women are the greatest victims, since they pay a heavier 
penalty for delaying marriage than do men. 

Parents do their daughters a great disservice when they seize 
upon some trivial talent which the girl possesses, as for music, 
and urge her to prepare herself for a musical career, rather than 
for marriage. There is probably not one such case in a hundred 
where the advice is really justified; but the girl, misled by the 
vanity of her parents, and the praise of incompetent teachers who 
want a pupil (the percentage of inefficiency probably being greater 
among music teachers than in any other branch of the teaching 
profession), spends great amounts of time and money in training, 
only to find later that there is no career for her, or, if there is, 
that she would have preferred a family. If such girls were encour- 
aged to prepare for family life, in the first place, and at the same 
time to develop their talents for their own pleasure and that of 
their friends, many a broken heart would be avoided. 

Race, health, beauty, and education are among the other traits 
most frequently called to mind, and so often discussed as to require 
no further comment here. Financial and social position almost 
always play a part in the selection of a mate, and while they may 
be given too much weight, it is inaccurate to protest against them 
as interferences with good mating. As Roswell H. Johnson has 
shown (1921), they form one of the most available rough-and-ready 
measurements of the real value of a family. 


EUGENIC CONSIDERATIONS 


Other matters of personal importance will occur to every reader, 
for they loom large in all discussions of marriage. The traits 
that are primarily of importance to the children are not quite so 
often considered. ‘They may be summed up as good ancestry. 


CHOICE OF A MATE 27 


This should include a good average of both physical and mental 
traits. Health, fertility, vigor, and longevity are most to be 
desired on the physical side; on the mental side general intelligence, 
self-control, energy, efficiency, usefulness, and altruism. 

It is necessary to emphasize the average of the ancestry, because 
young people frequently make the mistake of being swayed by a 
few outstanding traits, either good or bad. The average is much 
more significant. Descent from some great but remote ancestor is 
of little value compared with a high average among uncles and 
aunts. 

In addition to the foregoing, it is of course important that the 
young people have an intelligent idea of what marriage means, 
and what its duties and privileges are; that they be educated for 
parenthood; and that they have enough money to make a start. 


III. SOCIAL SANCTIONS 


While the state should interfere with lovers as little as possible, 
it is necessary that every mating be (1) restricted, (2) pre-an- 
nounced, and (3) recorded. None of these precautions will in any 
way infringe the rights and legitimate privileges of any man or 
woman. If any of them is omitted, society will to that extent lack 
needful protection. ’ 


RESTRICTIONS ON MARRIAGE 


i. Marriage must be safeguarded by prohibiting it to certain 
classes of people whose mating would result in far more harm to 
society than benefit to themselves. Certain restrictions have long 
been enforced; a few others should be established. Among the 
restrictions of most interest are: 

(a) Age. Probably few personal interests would be injured 
if the limit were placed at 21 for men and 18 for women. People 
who are not old enough to vote or to exercise the other rights of 
adult life can scarcely be considered old enough to undertake the 
delicate and difficult responsibilities of matrimony. 

Such a restriction would have a eugenic value, in tending to 
equalize the birth rate in the more capable and less capable parts 
of the population. At present the necessity of getting an education 
or a start in business prevents most superior young men (and 
therefore most superior young women) from marrying before 25, 
while among the poor and shiftless marriage makes little differ- 
ence, and can be undertaken years earlier than this without in- 
convenience. The result is early marriage and larger families 
among a part of the population where these extra children are not 
needed. If they were restrained until 21 and 18, the superior part 
of the population would start more nearly even with them. 

When it is recalled that there are in the United States at the 
present time more than 600,000 husbands or wives less than 16 

28 


SOCIAL SANCTIONS 29 


years old (Fred S. Hall and Mary E. Richmond), it will be evident 
that any attempt to raise the legal age of marriage to 18 and 21 
would be revolutionary and disastrous. Many states still retain 
the old common law standard of 12 years for girls and 14 for boys. 
Undue haste to change this legislation is almost certain to mean 
an increase of juvenile delinquency, illegitimacy, promiscuity, and 
abortion. But if public opinion generally accepts the desirability 
of changes which will bring about earlier marriage among the 
educated and later marriage among the uneducated, a gradual 
improvement can be brought about, which can be registered from 
time to time by a slight raise of the legal age, if circumstances 
permit. 

(b) Consanguinity, in the nearer degrees, is generally con- 
sidered a bar to marriage. One-third of the states of the union 
prohibit the marriage of first cousins, Oklahoma extends the re- 
striction to second cousins. Biologically such a restriction is not 
justified, and its universal enforcement would have deprived the 
world of much talent. There is no longer any mystery about this 
matter. The marriage of relatives merely means that the mates 
have, to a greater extent than usual, the same inherited traits. 
Their children therefore get a double dose of these traits. If the 
traits are good the offspring are better, while if the traits are bad 
the children are naturally handicapped to an unusual extent. 
From a strictly biological point of view, then, cousin marriages 
might be commended in good families and condemned in defective 
stock. 

The argument against such marriages must be made on other 
grounds than the genetic. It is obvious, for instance that two 
young people are likely to be better off if they have the advice, 
influence, and support of two family circles back of them, rather 
than merely of the single one in which they grew up together. And 
it is clear that the love which binds the members of a family to- 
gether is not the same as that which joins mates for life: the two 
ought not to be confused, and it is therefore desirable that thoughts 
of mating should not arise in the minds of close relatives. 

Such reasons as these are good arguments against cousin mar- 


30 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


riage, but they scarcely justify any legal interference. The exist- 
ing laws against cousin marriage should be abolished. 

(c) Mental defects. Insanity has always been a bar to marriage, 
because of the legal principle that an insane person is not competent 
to enter into a contract. The biological reasons against such a 
marriage are equally weighty, to say the least; and there is a tend- 
ency nowadays to extend the restriction to include the feeble- 
minded. 

This is a step in the right direction, but it immediately involves 
the difficulty of telling who is feebleminded. The term is a rela- 
tive one, and it is not always easy to draw the line, especially in 
border-line cases. The difficulty is all the greater in those states 
where the question must be legally determined, not by experts, 
but by a jury of 12 men who may be “good and true”’ but who 
certainly know nothing about the subject. 

It is highly desirable to prevent the feebleminded from marrying, 
or at least from bearing children, but it is doubtful if legal restric- 
tions on marriage are likely to accomplish much at the present 
time. More is to be expected from education of the public, from 
segregation of the feebleminded, or from putting them in charge 
of responsible relatives with the understanding that they are not 
to mate unless previously sterilized. 

In any case it is even more desirable to keep down the birth-rate 
in the large part of the population that is mentally “low grade,” 
than to prevent the obviously feebleminded from marrying; for 
the greater part of mental defect comes from the former class of 
matings. There is an appalling amount of feeblemindedness lying 
concealed (‘‘recessive’’) in the germ-plasm of people who possess 
intelligence that seems to be normal. The number of these “‘car- 
riers’’ in the population is much greater than the number of persons 
who are frankly feebleminded or imbecile. Whenever two of these 
carriers marry each other, some of their children are likely to be 
feebleminded. So even if all the recognized feebleminded were 
prevented from reproducing, for a number of generations, an 
abundant new crop of feebleminded children would be produced 
each year from the seemingly normal parents who are carriers 


SOCIAL SANCTIONS 31 


of the recessive defect. The real problem of society is therefore 
to lessen the reproduction of all the inefficient or less intelligent 
strata of the population, while at the same time striving greatly to 
increase the reproduction of the most efficient and highly endowed 
part. 

In some states epilepsy has been made a bar to marriage, but 
this is a term that means a good many different things, none of 
them fully understood, and it is doubtful whether legal prohibitions 
can be of much avail at present except in extreme cases where they 
are scarcely needed. 

(d) Physical defects usually taken into account in marriage 
consist of a few infectious diseases. Impotence is regarded as 
ground for annulment rather than for prohibition of marriage, the 
theory no doubt being that this condition (like sterility) can only 
become known after marriage has been consummated. Con- 
genitally deaf, dumb, or blind should not have children in marriage, 
unless they have extraordinary counterbalancing qualities. 

Venereal infections and, in a few states, tuberculosis, are the 
diseases most taken into account. As they stand on a different 
footing, I shall consider them separately, beginning with the latter. 

Broadly speaking, one who is tuberculous ought not to marry; 
and one ought not to marry a tuberculous person. But to forbid 
the marriage of all such would be to prevent a very considerable 
part of society from mating. Many of these persons will be cured, 
many will avoid having children, others may have such superior 
traits as to outweigh the defect. Moreover, a tuberculous person 
is little more likely to infect others—even his wife—if married than 
if not married. Hence at the present time it is not feasible to 
forbid marriage of the tuberculous. An intensification of the 
educational campaign, to lead people for the sake of posterity 
voluntarily to avoid such marriage, and to realize the desirability 
of mating in sound stocks, is all that can be demanded. 

Syphilis and gonorrhea are in a different category, because of 
their higher infectiousness and the practical certainty of com- 
munication toa mate. There is every reason why no one infected 
with a venereal disease should be permitted to wed. The question 
is merely one of means to be used to make the prohibition effective. 


32 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


Many states have attempted to reach this goal either by requir- 
ing the applicants for a marriage license to swear that they are not 
infected with venereal diseases, or by making the man present a 
certificate showing that he has been examined by a physician and 
found to be free from such diseases. 

The obstacles interfering with the complete success of such a law 
as this are serious. In the first place, denial of a license will not 
always prevent mating, for the class of people infected with vene- 
real diseases is not the most responsible and high-minded class 
in the community. In the second place, the measure comes too 
late to prevent all cases of infection, for a person with syphilis 
in some stages can infect another merely by kissing or by drinking 
out of the same cup: therefore freedom from syphilis ought to be 
assured before two people become engaged. In the third place, 
it is practically impossible for even a specialist to certify, after a 
prolonged and expensive examination, that a given person is free 
from syphilis or gonorrhea, and it is therefore out of the question 
for the average physician, in a hasty $3 examination, to assert such 
freedom. Moreover, there will always be found incompetent and 
dishonest doctors who will give worthless certificates. Finally, 
from a scientific point of view the examination ought to apply to 
women as well as men, but this is repugnant to public sentiment, 
particularly since in many towns there are no women physicians 
available to make the examinations for their own sex. 

All these and other obstacles, coupled with the indifference or 
hostility of a large part of the medical profession, have interfered 
seriously with the enforcement of such measures in the states that 
now have them. The educational result, in arousing the public 
to the seriousness of venereal diseases, and their particular menace 
to the family, is good. On the other hand, an examination, in- 
correctly or fraudulently reporting a man to be uninfected, may 
give his bride a false sense of security. 

Many people, arguing that no law is ever 100 per cent enforced, 
believe that on the whole these medical certificate laws are a 
gain—that they are much better than nothing. But the ideal 
toward which reformers should look is an enlightened public senti- 


SOCIAL SANCTIONS 33 


ment which will lead every person, male or female, who is about 
to marry, to have a thorough physical examination, and at the 
same time receive such instruction as may fit his or her own case. 
Cases differ so that it is impossible for any blanket legislation to 
fit them all. 


PUBLISHING THE BANNS 


2. So much for the principal ways in which marriage is or should 
be restricted. In addition to such precautions, it should be pub- 
lished in advance, to prevent hasty, secret, and ill-considered 
marriages. 

What is needed here is a revival of the old custom of publishing 
the banns. If every application were posted two weeks before a 
marriage license is issued, few legitimate interests would be men- 
aced and a large proportion of undesirable marriages would be 
prevented. Friends and relatives, public sentiment, or sobering-up 
would come to the rescue, and a proposed match be abandoned 
which, if carried through secretly, as it now may be, would end 
only in misery and divorce. Such a measure is now being adopted 
by many states. 


COMMON LAW MARRIAGE 


3. Marriages must not only be restricted and pre-announced, 
but they must also be recorded. This means simply the abolition 
of that American anomaly, the common law marriage. 

In one-half of the States, a man and woman can contract a legal 
marriage—as binding as any other—without license, ceremony, 
or publicity of any kind, simply by agreeing with each other that 
they will henceforth be man and wife. The agreement need not 
even be in writing—a telephone conversation is sufficient! In 
some states they need not ever have lived together—perhaps they 
would not need even to have seen each other. A famous case 
concerns a man in Minnesota who signed a marriage contract in 
duplicate and sent the two copies to a woman in Missouri. She 
signed them and returned one copy to him. The man was shortly 
afterward killed in a railway accident and the woman, who had never 


34 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


lived with him, sued for damages, which she got, as widow of the 
deceased. Another type is represented by cases where a man picks 
up a prostitute on the street, takes her to a hotel, and registers 
her as his wife. On the basis of this “‘public declaration” it may be 
possible for her to sue for the establishment of her legal rights as 
his wife, and get a jury to give them to her. One need not sym- 
pathize with the man in such a position and yet realize that the 
result tends to degrade the institution of marriage. 

It is obvious that if the state is going to exercise any control at 
all over marriage, it can not afford to leave such a loophole as this. 
The fact that common law marriage benefits only people who, 
on the average, represent the least desirable part of the community, 
is all the more reason why the custom should be abolished. The 
people who practice common law marriage are those who should 
be under the greatest control, not under the least control or none 
at all. 

The United States is the only civilized country where common 
law marriage is now tolerated. A remnant of old English common 
law, it has been abolished in England since 1753. It became estab- 
lished in American law, as Otto E. Koegel has shown, through 
indifference and ignorance, almost by accident. The American 
Bar Association and virtually all students of the question have 
pronounced in favor of its abolition. Public sentiment should 
demand that the legislatures of all states where it still lingers wipe 
it out of existence. 

Some other forms of marriage are open to one of the great ob- 
jections against the common law marriage, namely, its lack of 
solemnity. There is a real advantage in a formal ceremonial 
which makes people realize that a wedding is something different 
from every-day life. The church ritual justifies itself here. The 
ordinary office of a justice of the peace, decorated with spittoons, 
cigar stubs, constables, and loafers, is not a suitable place for a 
wedding. ‘The state should provide a dignified hall in the county 
court house, and designate a suitable jurist, for the increasing num- 
ber of people who are not married in their own homes or in a church 
—even if their ceremony consists, as it may in some states, of 
nothing more than the signature of a civil contract. 


IV. REPRODUCTION 


It is unnecessary to argue that the normal family consists not 
merely of mates, but of parents and children. The family has 
meant that, since the beginning of time; normal mates are not 
satisfied unless they have children; and a community made up of 
mates without children would become extinct in short order. The 
family did not create children: children created the family. Among 
lower animals, a home and family are found only when they are 
necessary, which commonly means forashort time. Among human 
beings, with almost infinitely higher mental capacity, the home and 
family exist for the duration of life because they are necessary 
throughout life. 

It is worth while, however, to recognize that under certain 
conditions a childless family, though not normal, may yet be ap- 
provable. If, for instance, there is some reason, as inherited defect, 
why two people should not have children, yet they love each other, 
it is better for them to marry than to remain single, for they thus 
increase their own happiness, and probably that of others, without 
injuring society. 

Apart from such exceptional cases, a normal family is certainly 
one that includes children. The latter may be considered both 
as to quantity and as to quality. | 

The number of children in a family must be regarded both from 
the point of view of the parents, and that of society. 


QUANTITY IN CHILDREN 


Society is interested first of all in perpetuation; suicide is as 
abnormal for a race as for an individual. It has been shown re- 
peatedly by statisticians that an average of about four children 
per family is necessary to keep a population even stationary in 
numbers, without providing for any increase. 

It might at first sight be supposed that if each married couple 

35 


36 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


produced two children to replace themselves, the population 
would be kept up; but a moment’s thought will show that this is 
not true, because these two children can not be depended on to 
grow up, marry, and produce two more children in turn. Some 
will die before marriage, or before their marriage has been fruitful; 
others never marry; still others marry but for one reason or another 
have no children. ‘To allow for such conditions, it has been found 
that an average couple must bear four children or bring three to 
maturity; and these are therefore the basic figures in any consider- 
ation of a normal family. 

But it must never be forgotten that they are merely averages. 
The interests of society are best fostered if it is made up of families 
of more than four children among the superior part of the popula- 
tion, and of less than four in the inferior part, ranging down to no 
children at all among the defectives and genuine undesirables. 

How does this statement of quantity compare with the interests 
of the parents themselves? Not well, it might seem at first glance, 
for it is notorious that the prosperous, efficient, and useful families 
of the nation are frequently smaller than that, while among the 
poor, shiftless, and feebleminded, large families are all too common, 
to their own distress as well as to that of the commonwealth. 
“The people in big houses have small families; the people in small 
houses have big families.” 


ADVANTAGES OF LARGE FAMILIES 


Both these conditions will be considered later. Here it is only 
necessary to point out that, from a biological point of view, it is 
to the interest of superior parents themselves to have four or more 
children. The reasons—and they are often strong ones—which 
have discouraged childbearing in this class, and have made the 
two-child family, or even the only child, seem desirable, are not 
biological, but matters of finance, ambition, social aspiration, and 
convenience. 

Among the biological reasons against small families, and in favor 
of a family of four or more children, are such as the following: 

a. A healthy woman is benefited by repeated pregnancies. 


REPRODUCTION 37 


Her system is organized for that purpose, and it finds full expression 
of its potentialities, and corresponding full degree of well-being, 
only in repeated pregnancies. 

b. The inherent quality of the children is better in such families. 
The first-born commonly starts with a slight handicap—he is 
lighter in weight and shorter in !ength, at birth, and this is appar- 
ently reflected in his subsequent life. He is, for instance, not so 
long-lived, on the average, as are the three or four children who 
follow him. If the family is limited to one or two children, it is 
made up of first-borns from 50 to 100 per cent, while in the larger 
family the percentage of later-than-first is higher. 

c. The education of the children is better. The character of 
the “only child” is proverbial, and the proverb is too often justi- 
fied. In a larger family, the children have normal contacts with 
their brothers and sisters: not only do they benefit, but their 
influence on their parents is better than is that of an only child. 
Normal parents under favorable circumstances will derive much 
more pleasure and satisfaction from four children than from two. 

d. The parents of a large family have a greater chance of giving 
birth to a particularly talented child, than have the parents of a 
small family—other considerations agreeing, of course. As the 
inherited units are distributed by chance, the situation resembles 
that in a lottery. The more tickets, or children, one has, the 
greater the likelihood of drawing a capital prize. 

As to quantity, then, there is no antagonism between the biologi- 
cal interests of the parents and of society. In both cases a family 
of four or more children is desirable, and the small family is harmful, 
in superior stock. 


QUALITY IN CHILDREN 


As to quality, the interests of the two are always in complete 
agreement, both parents and society desiring that every child be 
as good a child as possible. 

An opposite view has been maintained sometimes: it has been 
charged that some societies, or a dominant part of some societies, 
cared little about the quality of the children born, but wanted 


38 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


abundant quantity for industrial exploitation or military aggres- 
sion—wanted mere cannon fodder, in short, instead of good citizens. 

It is doubtful if such a view has ever been maintained seriously in 
responsible quarters. It is true that many writers on population 
have shown little concern as to quality, but this is usually because 
they did not appreciate sufficiently the extent and importance of 
inherent differences among children. ‘They tended to believe that 
all children are created equal, and that nothing more is necessary 
than good education to produce good citizens in abundance. 

Such a view is entirely out of harmony with the facts, and is 
rapidly becoming obsolete. And if anyone has actually thought 
that quantity, without regard to quality, was a desirable aim in 
population, he was wholly wrong. A high average quality of 
population has never been anything but a benefit to a country, 
whereas a large quantity, with low quality, has in the long run 
never been anything but a handicap, even in new and undeveloped 
countries where quantity is most desirable. 

This brief and summary discussion of an immense problem is 
perhaps sufficient to establish the only point it was intended to 
establish: namely, that the normal family, as here considered, will 
average four children, running higher than this in the superior 
part of the population and lower in the inferior part. 


V. INFLUENCE 


A normal family must promote the welfare of father, mother, 
and children. If it does so, it will also benefit society as a whole. 


INFLUENCE ON MEN 


1. The evolution of the family during hundreds of thousands 
of years has been toward binding the father closer to the 
mother and child. It may be assumed, therefore, that he is now 
reasonably well adjusted to the home, and that its influence on him 
and his influence on it will be, on the whole, favorable. 

This assumption is borne out by an examination of the facts. 
I believe it is safe to say that men desire marriage and a home 
(including children) as much as women do, if not more; that they 
get as much satisfaction out of their home life as do their wives, 
if not more; and that home life exerts as much steadying and in- 
spiring influence on them as it does on women, if not more. 

This is not to say that any man fits perfectly into his home, or 
does his full duty by it—any more than any woman. But the 
changes have been rung so often on that excellent motto, ‘“‘What 
is home without a mother,” and the man in the case has been so 
often pushed into the background, that it is worth while to empha- 
size, occasionally, the fact that a husband and a father is part of a 
family; that in most respects he comes fully as near, on the average, 
to contributing his share as does any other part of the family; 
and that the personal benefits he derives from it in the shape of 
greater comfort, stimulus to ambition, comradeship, satisfaction 
in his children, and the like, are fully recognized by the average 
man. ; 

So far as he is concerned, the changes necessary to make the 
family life influence his happiness and productivity more favorably 
are mainly such educational changes as will make family life in 
general more harmonious, will perpetuate love between the mates; 

39 


40 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


and particularly such economic changes as will enable him to estab- 
lish and care for his family without excessive sacrifices. 

On the other hand, most fathers need better education to fulfill 
all their duties within the home. Nearly all of them need to give 
more time to their wives and children, and to assume a larger 
share of responsibility for the details of child training. Other 
delinquencies of the father, such as the economic (many men tend 
to make their wives dependents, either by parsimony or by indul- 
gence) are rather too remote from the biologic field to be con- 
sidered in this brief summary. 


INFLUENCE ON WOMEN 


It is the woman, more often than the man, who complains of 
marriage; who finds herself dissatisfied and disillusioned. In 
most communities, four out of every five divorces are sought by 
women. Frequently, her revolt is due to wrong education, to 
lack of sufficient occupation of the right kind, and to the agitation 
of mismated wives and disappointed spinsters. 

Frequently dissatisfaction is due to the failure of a well-inten- 
tioned but ill-educated husband to understand his wife’s nature; 
or her failure to understand her own. 

Sometimes, on the other hand, woman is entitled to complain 
justly that home life becomes for her an imprisonment, in which 
she is cut off from contact with almost everything worth while 
in the world and condemned to spend her years in menial labor, 
unrewarded and even unrecognized. 

In so far as such a condition really exists, it is often her own fault 
as much as that of any one else, and due to a wrong point of view, 
an easy acceptance of the line of least resistance, and lack of imagi- 
nation or ambition to step out of the rut. An education of young 
women which prepared them better for motherhood, which incul- 
cated a more scientific attitude toward the home, and which made 
them more efficient in the discharge of their domestic duties, and 
better able to see the fallacies in the propaganda of home-breakers, 
and which showed them how to take a larger part (though not by a 
“‘career’’) in the cultural and expressive opportunities of life, would 
do more than anything else to remove the sources of irritation. 


INFLUENCE 41 


In short, a large part of the complaint made by women regarding 
home influence is due to wrong education and surroundings. But 
there is enough legitimate ground for complaint to demand im- 
provements in the education of men, as well as of the women 
themselves. Finally, every reorganization and improvement in 
society that tends to make domestic life simpler and less burden- 
some, and frees for more productive uses the time of such women 
as are now actually absorbed to a large extent by unproductive 
labor, may be advantageous. 


INFLUENCE ON CHILDREN 


3. The importance of the influence of the child on the home, 
and the home on the child, does not lack recognition. Sometimes, 
indeed, there is a sentimental halo cast over the whole relationship. 
This is intensified by the fact that perhaps not one woman in a 
hundred is prepared effectively for motherhood, and some of the 
other 99 tend to assume that “instinct”? furnishes them all the 
training and equipment necessary and that ‘‘mother love’ is an 
adequate substitute for knowledge and efficiency. 

As the fact has become more generally realized during the last 
few decades, that a child’s personality is largely formed during the 
first five years, and quite definitely in the first two years, of his life, 
the home has not lacked assailants as well as defenders. It has 
been accused, and often justly, of exercising a cramping and de- 
forming influence on the child’s emotional life, of teaching him 
to be subservient to authority, whether right or wrong, and of 
laying the bases of complexes that may work out disastrously in 
future years, when they are quite forgotten and unsuspected. 

Among the dangers to which the child is exposed are, first, lack 
of love, and secondly, unwisely directed love. 

Disharmony in the family life gives the infant a background 
which it can never outgrow. It starts him with an equipment of 
fundamental antagonisms and feelings of inferiority which color 
his whole future emotional life. 

Unwisely directed love produces not only the unpleasantly 
familiar “‘spoiled child,’ but the child with a mother-complex 


42 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


or a father-complex. ‘The affections are imbedded so tenaciously 
in a parent (usually the one of the opposite sex) that its personality 
is unable to free itself at the customary time—the age of adoles- 
cence—and the child goes through life with its emotions still fixed 
in an infantile way on its parent. The result is either failure to 
marry, or failure to find happiness in marriage. 

Such dangers have led some people to argue that children would 
be better brought up if they were taken away from their parents 
soon after birth and entrusted to the impersonal justice and 
scientific attentions of a state-managed institution. J.-J. Rous- 
seau, the great apostle of individualism and natural education in 
the eighteenth century, sent all his own children to a foundling 
asylum and never knew what became of them. Probably few 
persons adopt this view as a matter of conviction. If they do, 
a study of America’s 1400 orphan asylums, containing some 150,000 
children (half of whom have both parents living), will make clear 
that no brooder can supply the intimate contacts which form a 
child’s personality, and which it finds only initsownhome. Every 
child needs a little love. A recent study of foster children by the 
New York State Charities Aid Association leads its authors to 
conclude that even the worst home is better than an orphanage, 
the results being measured by the child’s success in getting along 
in the world after it reached maturity. While this may be an 
extreme conclusion, its foundation is solid. 

It is precisely because the home is not perfect, that it is a 
good educational institution. Life itself is not perfect. It de- 
mands constant adjustment to its imperfections. The children 
in an orphan asylum are cogs in a machine which either never makes 
a mistake or, if it does, never acknowledges it. Everything goes 
according to rule, and the children are turned out as mechanical 
products. ‘They have never learned to think. 

The same sort of arguments apply also against the school, which 
many parents attempt to make shoulder a burden that should be 
carried in the home. 

The relationship of a child to its home has far more mutual 
service and reciprocity in it than has the relationship of a child 


INFLUENCE 43 


to its school. All parts of the family are well fitted (as is the case 
with any organic whole) to subserve each others’ needs and to 
supplement each others’ efforts. It is generally recognized that 
the increasing subordination of family life, in large cities, and the 
increasing prominence of the school (ending in the 24-hour school 
and the 12-month school) in the life of the child, is dangerous; 
and that it is, in fact, producing an annual crop of children not 
well fitted to be citizens. The normal family is the only effective 
school for the life of the citizen, and it is hard to see how, human 
nature being what it is, this situation canever bechanged. ‘The 
man who has learned how to lead both an individual and a peaceful 
life within a large family will find it surprisingly easy to get on 
with his fellow-citizens in the larger world, for he will have learned 
the difficult art of respecting the interests of others while maintain- 
ing his own.” 

So long as individuality and variety of character remain an 
advantage to the world, the family can not be replaced. The 
stereotyped character which tends to be produced by schools, and 
still more by institutions, will never be anything except a disadvan- 
tage to its possessors and to society. 

Further, as Helen Bosanquet has pointed out, it takes a particu- 
lar child to elicit the good traits of a parent. Few people are able 
to give to children at large the same sympathy and help that they 
can give to their own offspring. If they try to do so, they are 
likely to end merely as officious busybodies. Moreover, it is 
impossible to make an artificial family by throwing together a 
man, a woman, and a few children under the same roof. It is the 
inheritance, the traditions, and the love that are the alchemy which 
transmutes this assortment of human beings into a family. 

Another important reason, generally overlooked, why a mother 
can care for and educate her children better than can any outsider 
shepherding the infants of a score of strangers, is that she knows 
the inherited capacities and defects of the child. The greater 
part of education consists in developing the former and suppressing 
the latter, and as a knowledge of heredity becomes more wide- 
spread, this function of the home will become more and more 


44 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


valuable. In most cases, the child will have talents like those of 
his parents. His own home is the environment in which these 
talents will most naturally develop and find exercise. There 
will be fewer round pegs in square holes, when this phase of family 
life receives the emphasis it deserves. 

In all of these essential respects, there is no substitute for the 
monogamous family—with all its faults. 

A home in which the parents control their love for the benefit 
of their children, and develop an atmosphere of comradeship, 
instead of seeking to gratify their selfish vanity by making their 
children mere worshippers of the parental god or goddess, will 
obviate the danger of the parent-complex. The surplus love 
turned toward the other mate, instead of toward the child, will 
do away with disharmony and obviate the dangers on that side. 
If such wisdom on the part of the parents is coupled with early 
marriage and reasonably large families, so that their love is more 
spread out, and not concentrated like the sun’s rays through a 
lens, in a withering blast on a defenseless ‘‘only child,” there will 
be few complaints heard about the reciprocal influence of children 
and the home. 

The woman who thinks that she is reserved by nature for greater 
things, and that she has a message which must be given to the 
world, while her children are turned over to a servant, may be told 
emphatically that ““No mother is too good to be wasted on her own 
children.” 

To sum up, the kind of influence that characterizes a normal 
home, and promotes the well-being of all its members, and thereby 
of society as a whole, requires better education of parents than is 
now the rule. Man must understand woman, and learn to look 
upon her as an individual, a personality. Woman must not only 
understand man, but must understand herself, her own biology. 
Both need further guidance in the care of children. But given 
these improvements, no other institution can take the place of the 
family. 


eke Lie i 


CONDITIONS THAT INTERFERE WITH THE NORMAL 
FUNCTIONING OF THE FAMILY 


ray, eer Y 


nee a wis 
ie hai i, 
J 


sa Re ae 


. nts Dees ‘a a el a ‘ee, 


j , 
PT vip inks mh Yee 
' 5 wind ay : " ne 
her we 
ie 





INTRODUCTION 


The following part discusses some of the conditions that inter- 
fere at the present time in America with the normal, biological 
functioning of the family that has been outlined in Part I. 

It will be evident that the various abnormalities are not sharply 
distinct from each other. Most of them are interrelated. 

It follows that there is no specific remedy for any of these evils. 
Measures that tend to mitigate one will also tend to mitigate some, 
or all, of the others. In general, the cure of any one of them is to 
be sought only in a complete program for the conservation of the 
family. Every effort to this end will tend to reduce the separate 
evils. On the other hand, any measure that is advertised to cure 
a particular evil, without reference to the whole program of con- 
servation, is to be looked upon with suspicion. 

It is perhaps needless to say that the division of subjects in this 
Part II is dictated merely by convenience, and follows the line of 
popular classification. It is not intended to be systematic, logical, 
or rigorous. Moreover, there are many minor ills that have 
scarcely been mentioned. 


47 


I. CELIBACY AND THE ASCETIC IDEAL 


For the present purpose, celibacy may be defined as a life in 
which one deliberately and permanently renounces sex. It does 
not, therefore, apply to the persons (if they are any such) who re- 
main unmarried because they can not find suitable partners, 
much as they want todoso. Still less does it apply to those, aptly 
called pseudo-celibates, who remain unmarried but find an outlet 
for their sexual dispositions in illegitimate ways. 

A life of celibacy is chosen by men and women for at least three 
very different types of reasons. 

1. In every generation there is a certain proportion of people 
who, through illness or inborn defect, are lacking in normal sexual 
instincts, or who may even have the instincts of the opposite sex 
rather than those which go regularly with their own. Obviously, 
such persons are usually not interested in marriage and parent- 
hood, and are likely to remain celibate. It is highly desirable that 
they do so, for should they have children they might pass on their 
own abnormal constitutions, and the existence of people with 
such constitutions is not advantageous to a race. 

2. There is also a certain proportion of high-minded people who, 
because they come of families in which there is some inheritable 
defect, as for example insanity, make up their minds that it is their 
duty not to marry. Where the grounds are weighty, this attitude 
is commendable. Sometimes, however, it is adopted because of a 
hypercritical point of view which leads the individual to magnify 
a small defect and to ignore a hundred real merits that ought to be 
perpetuated. It is necessary to maintain a proper perspective 
here. A eugenic conscience is a good thing, but it must not havea 
hair-trigger. The race can well afford to carry a moderate burden 
of defects if they are associated with numerous qualities of great 
value. 

Even if reproduction is undesirable, it is not always necessary 

48 


CELIBACY AND THE ASCETIC IDEAL 49 


that persons of this class remain celibate. They might in many 
instances mate with others like themselves, after sterilization, and 
enjoy a normal married life except for parenthood. This would 
increase their personal happiness and would thereby benefit the 
race, which is always benefited by an increase in the happiness of 
its members. 

3. The third type of celibacy is that which is based on the ascetic 
ideal, assuming that a life without sex is ‘‘higher”’ and more spiritual 
than one in which all the instincts find normal satisfaction. Such 
a point of view is directly or indirectly an outgrowth of religious 
ideas, and has been found in many different religions, in many 
different countries and ages. It was foreshadowed among the 
ancient Hebrews, and at the time of Jesus it was a tenet of a 
prominent sect called the Essenes. Jesus, who speaks of marriage 
as an ordinance of God (Matt. 19:4) may have had the Essenes 
in mind when he remarked that some men remain unmarried for 
the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Paul, in the seventh chapter 
of his first epistle to the Corinthians, took the typical ascetic 
stand, urging his readers to remain unmarried in order that they 
might devote all their energy to the service of God; but adding that 
if any were weak, they should marry rather than do something 
worse. 

Paul’s authority, together with the influence of ideas from various 
oriental cults, and of reaction against sensuous elements of Greco- 
Roman culture, eventually carried the day, in spite of the opposi- 
tion of some early leaders, and ascetic celibacy became regarded 
as the highest type of life, especially desirable for priests; although 
it was not the law of the church until three or four centuries after 
Christ, and the law was not enforced strictly until about 1,000 A.D. 

What was legally necessary for religious devotees was naturally 
supposed to be desirable for others who devoted themselves to 
human welfare; so celibacy was either required or advised for 
teachers, lawyers, and members of many other professions, during 
the middle ages and later; indeed, remnants of this point of view 
can be seen up to the present, as for example, in the idea that cer- 
tain teachers in universities should be bachelors. * 


50 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


One can easily imagine the tremendous eugenic loss to the race, 
from a system which led many of the well-educated and intelligent 
people of the community, the natural leaders, to leave no offspring. 
Their talents were buried with them in the grave. 

While asceticism is probably superstitious in origin, all sorts of 
attempts have of course been made to rationalize it and find a sup- 
posed justification. ‘The name refers it to the course of training of 
Greek athletes (askesis = exercise), among whom (as with modern 
ones) it was the custom to abstain from sexual intercourse for some 
time before entering a contest. This seems plausible enough, 
for such intercourse involves the expenditure of energy, and one 
would not expend it in this way, any more than by running up 10 
flights of stairs, just before going into the arena. Nevertheless, 
it is by no means certain that this is the real origin of the custom, 
for the same continence was required before many other ceremonies 
not of an athletic character. The true explanation (or part of it) 
is perhaps the feeling of primitive people that continence, like other 
sacrifices, is pleasing to the gods. 

Even if one accepts the customary explanation of Greek askesis, 
yet to push the argument farther and say that, in order to keep his 
time, thought, and vigor for other work, one should refrain from 
sexual intercourse throughout life, is no more logical than to 
say that a pedestrian, in order to get all his energy into his legs, 
should carry both arms in plaster casts until death. It overlooks 
the fact that the best development of any part or function of the 
body is promoted by the harmonious development of the whole. 
Paul himself, in one of his favorite analogies, likening the Church 
to the members of a body (Romans 12, 1 Cor. 12) came much nearer 
to sound biology, and if he had applied the same reasoning to © 
marriage, the Christian Church would have been spared what is, 
from a biological point of view, one of the greatest blots on its 
record. 

Without going more fully into the origin of the ascetic ideal 
(which is studied at length in standard works on theology, ethics, 
and morals, as well as in special histories like that of H.C. Lea), 
one may easily discern the element of truth in this (as in most 


CELIBACY AND THE ASCETIC IDEAL 51 


errors), which led Paul astray.!' From the narrowest point of 
view, it is true that a married man, charged with the care of a 
family, can not devote as much time and energy to public service 
as can a single man. But the narrowest point of view does not 
extend far, and when the question is examined more carefully, 
the conclusion may be reversed. Grant that the married man can 
not devote all his energy to the worship of God: but can the 
single man, either? ‘The latter is too often the victim of inner 
conflicts, due to an attempt to suppress one of the most important 
functions of his body—conflicts that not only use up part of his 
energy, leaving him inferior in this respect to the happily married, 
but may in extreme instances deprive him of all energy whatever. 
There have been many more Saint Anthonies than history records. 

In other cases the celibate tries, vainly, to avoid conflict by laps- 
ing into pseudo-celibacy. Only the most unsophisticated would 
assume that such a life is, on the average, less distracting than 
normal family life. 

Finally, and most important of all in some respects, the celibate 
continually tends toward being self-centered. He is essentially 
“a narrow, frequently a warped, individual, ignorant, not only of 
half of humanity, but of himself,” and it is difficult for him to gain 
the poise, the altruism, the well-rounded outlook of the successful 
father of afamily. He lacks that prolongation and enrichment of 
the individual life that a family offers. 

It appears, then, that the attempt to divert all mental and bodily 
energy for a long time into one channel is, as might have been 
expected, largely illusory, and defeats itself. 

It is sometimes said that, whatever damage celibacy may have 
done to the race, it has at least been profitable to the Roman 
Catholic church, by giving it a body of workers without any other 
ties than those of their creed and hierarchy. Without entering 
into doctrinal controversy, it would perhaps be fair to compare 


1Tt is supposed that Paul looked for the second coming of Christ within a 
few years, If one expected the end of the world shortly, one might be pardoned 
for thinking it important to devote every energy to God’s work, regardless of 
human affairs such as marriage. 


_ 


ae THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


100 Roman Catholic priests or nuns in any age or all ages, with 100 
married protestant clergymen or women who devoted themselves 
to social work. ‘The selection could be made in each case either 
at random, or by picking out the hundred greatest. An impartial 
consideration would hardly show that the celibate surpassed the 
married. 

Moreover, it is only fair to charge against celibacy part of the 
breakdown in the system. The licentiousness of the clergy— 
not an unnatural result from the unnatural standards required of 
them—was one of the causes of the Reformation, which gave the 
death blow to Rome’s dream of universality and world dominion. 
In addition, when it began, the ranks of the Church’s ablest sup- 
porters had been decimated by a thousand years of celibacy. It 
might have been better off with a married clergy. And at the 
present time, it is destroying in each generation some of the good 
strains in its own ranks, through celibacy, while its rivals are 
perpetuating theirs. The Roman Catholic church itself may, 
therefore, some day realize, as other churches have, that the main- 
tenance of compulsory celibacy among its workers is not an asset. 

A proverb has it that “He travels fastest who travels alone.” 
But he rarely travels farthest; he rarely gets as much enjoyment 
from his travels as does one who has company; and in case of 
accident his travels will be brought to a sudden end, while the 
traveler with companions will be given care and can in due time 
proceed to his destination. Life is not a sprint, but a long distance 
contest. In spite of some conspicuous exceptions, an unprejudiced 
observer will see that in the long run and on the average most of the 
good work in the world is done by normal people leading normal 
lives in the midst of happy families; and that most of the trouble 
in the world is made by abnormal people unhappily married or not 
married at all. 

If these premises are well founded, it is incorrect to assume that 
a superior man or woman is likely to benefit the world more by 
remaining single and devoting his whole energy to his work. 

But the argument may be carried still farther than this, to 
maintain that even if a man could accomplish more in his profession 


CELIBACY AND THE ASCETIC IDEAL a 


through celibacy, he would nevertheless, no matter how philan- 
thropic his work, yet benefit the world most by marrying and 
having children, at the loss of some of his efficiency on the job. 
Looking over the world philosophically, one canot help seeing that 
it needs just now not so much an increase in material achievement 
as in good citizens. The conflicts and maladjustments of society 
are, in the last analysis, due to the fact that man has still the 
original nature that he had a thousand generations ago, but has 
altered his surroundings so greatly that he and his nature do not 
fit together. More progress would be made in the long run if 
there were a let-up for a few generations or a few centuries in the 
improvements of “civilizations” (which improvements are used 
by the existing population largely to oppress or kill each other), 
while attention was centered on improving the quality of the race 
through the production of more capable people and a reduction 
in the proportion of defectives and degenerates. Anyone who 
contemplates a life of celibacy with the idea that he can thereby 
most benefit the race, should consider carefully the possibilities in 
this direction, avoiding egotism and bearing in mind that, if he 
really has a talent, the best thing he can do is to keep it in circula- 
tion. Ordinarily, it is better for a man to pass his talent on to four 
or five children, by whom it may be multiplied indefinitely even 
if he does not use it at all himself, than it is for him to develop it 
to the full and let it die with him. 

Moreover, he should remember that no matter how absorbing 
his career may be at the outset, it may look much less absorbing 
in his declining years, when the enthusiasm of his comrades has 
died with them, and when he surveys the universe, disillusioned 
and alone. There is a saying to the effect that family life is a 
luxury in youth, a convenience in middle life, and a necessity in old 
age; and like many such sayings, it contains a germ of truth that is 
worth noting. 

Finally, the celibate must recall that he is deliberately choosing 
to let the torch go out, that has been handed on to him from the 
very beginning of life in the universe. In each generation it has 
found a tender. Had there been one break in the almost infinite 


54 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


line, he himself would not be here today. Every one of his myriad 
of ancestors answered up to the responsibility placed on him. 
Is he to be the first to refuse the chance of terrestrial immortality 
that is offered to him? Is he alone to be found wanting? 

Of course, no two cases are just alike. Each man must decide 
for himself. There may be instances where celibacy is desirable. 
But it can not be maintained as a general rule that celibacy is 
desirable in order to let people benefit the world by their endeavors. 

What has been said of the demerits of celibacy applies, by and 
large, to women as well as men; but with greater force, for biologi- 
cally both marriage and parenthood playa larger part in the normal 
life of women than of men. 

If, in spite of all this, one is obliged—because of ill health, for 
example—to choose a celibate life, he should look the facts squarely 
in the face and make the best of his situation. Deprived of the 
normal outlet for a part of his energy, he should seek the outlet 
nearest the normal one. Women commonly find comfort in 
teaching, nursing, or caring for the children of others. The nun 
regards herself as the bride of Christ, and to make the symbolism 
more satisfying she is garbed in a white wedding dress and formally 
united with him in a marriage ceremony at the altar, before she 
takes the veil. 

Unless an adequate outlet is found for the energy which is denied 
its normal outlet in marriage and parenthood, that energy is certain 
to make trouble inwardly. The celibate man too often becomes 
a contemptible old granny, thinking only of himself, a masturbator 
and woman-hater. The celibate woman too often develops into 
a typical “old maid,” lavishing her affections on a cat or dog, and 
filled with a deep and imaginary sense of the wrongs which her 
sex suffers in a man-made world. 

Throughout the foregoing discussion, my definition of celibacy 
must be borne in mind, as a deliberate and permanent renunciation 
of sex in life. It is entirely different from either continence or 
chastity, both of which will be dealt with in the following section. 
It does not include the transitory kind of asceticism that some- 
times follows satiety, when “‘the devil a monk would be.”’ Tempo- 


CELIBACY AND THE ASCETIC IDEAL 55 


rary abstinence is a necessary and desirable thing on many occa- 
sions, for various reasons, but these reasons are not any of those 
which lead one permanently to renounce the world, the flesh, and 
the devil in favor of a celibate life. 

Biologically, there is no superior virtue whatever in ascetic 
celibacy. For the defective man or woman it is just the thing. 
For the able and normal it means loss and damage both to the 
one who practices it, and to the race. 


Il. PREMARITAL INCONTINENCE 


Sexual intercourse, more or less promiscuous, before marriage, 
interferes with the family by making young people: 

1. Less likely to marry. Roswell Hill Johnson (1917) has an- 
alyzed this situation. While it is true that some individuals of 
feeble sexuality might by experience become so awakened as to 
be less satisfied with a continent life, and might thus in some cases 
be led to marriage, this is more than counterbalanced by the 
following considerations. 

a. The mere consciousness of loss of virginity has led in some 
sensitive persons, especially women, to a feeling of inferiority and 
an unwillingness to marry because of supposed unworthiness. 

b. The loss of reputation has prevented marriage with the 
desired mate. This is not at all uncommon. 

c. Infection with syphilis or gonorrhea has forced abandonment 
of marriage. This is especially common. 

d. Illicit experiences may have been so disappointing or dis- 
gusting, owing to the character of the consort, that an attitude of 
pessimism and hatred of the opposite sex is built up. Such an 
attitude prevents marriage not only directly, but indirectly, since 
persons with such an outlook are thereby less attractive to the 
opposite sex. 

e. A taste for sexual variety is built up so that the individual 
is unwilling to commit himself to a restriction of that variety. 

f. Occasionally, threat or blackmail by a jilted paramour pre- 
vents marriage. 

For these and similar reasons, experience of sexual intercourse 
in illegitimate ways tends to keep a certain number of people from 
marrying. 

2. But of those who do go ahead and marry, a large part if not 
all have been rendered less fit to marry than they would otherwise 
have been, for such reasons as: 


56 


PREMARITAL INCONTINENCE 57 


a. Infection with a venereal disease, which is not only damaging 
to health, expensive to cure, and the cause of loss of efficiency, but 
is all too likely to flare up again and infect wife and children. 

b. Financially, a young man in particular is likely to be im- 
paired, for patronage of prostitution is frequently an expensive 
indulgence in every way. 

c. Mentally the incontinent of both sexes are almost certain to 
undergo deterioration, particularly in respect to their standards 
of mate selection. The more flashy and physical qualities come 
to be too highly valued, to the subordination of the more sub- 
stantial and eugenic qualities that are of much greater importance 
in the long run. 

3. Finally, if they do marry, those who have had previous sexual 
experience are less likely to be able to succeed in marriage. Pre- 
marital intercourse almost always represents a purely selfish seeking 
for excitement and gratification, and the man or woman who goes 
into marriage with this point of view is severely handicapped from 
the start. 

The man who has been a patron of prostitutes with the idea of 
proving his fitness for marriage and getting a sexual education 1s 
particularly deluded. He succeeds in neither aim. 

In the first place, he does not in any way prove his fitness for 
marriage by patronizing a prostitute. It has often happened that 
a man under such circumstances experienced such feelings of 
disgust or aversion that he was entirely impotent, and therefore 
thought himself defective, whereas in normal marriage he would 
be wholly normal. On the other hand, success in intercourse 
with a prostitute, who practices all the tricks of her trade, is no 
qualification for love of a wife. 

In the second place, the attempt to make up a sex-life of frag- 
mentary episodes, in which he is thinking only of his own sensa- 
tions—and this is what the patronage of prostitution amounts to— 
is, psychologically, little more than a form of masturbation. It is 
the worst possible kind of preparation for married life. Probably 
the most perfect relationship, both physical and mental, can never 
exist between married people, if either one of them has had previous 


58 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


sexual experience. This fact, which is widely ignored, deserves 
the strongest emphasis. The ability to form the deepest and 
finest bond with one of the opposite sex is a highly specialized and 
delicate ability. It is easily destroyed. Once lost, it can not be 
regained. 

Often the man who has had previous experience does not dare 
to tell his bride. He denies it, and throughout the rest of his 
married life is constantly in fear of exposure, and continually feels 
that he is a liar and cheat. The same situation holds good for the 
woman who has been incontinent, and deceives her husband on 
that point. Mental states thus produced are constant sources of 
internal friction. 

While premarital incontinence thus tends to make people less 
likely to marry, less fit to marry, and less able to find happiness 
in marriage, it is true, as Professor Johnson pointed out, that men 
and women who are incontinent before marriage are probably, 
on the average, eugenically inferior to those who conform to the 
standards of the race. Therefore their failure to marry, their 
sterility from venereal diseases, and the like, are to a certain extent 
of value to the race in preventing this type from multiplying. But 
this is a crude and costly way of getting racial progress, and al- 
though it may have been of immense advantage in the past, it 
must now be supplanted by more discriminating and efficient 
methods of eugenics. 

So much for the direct influence of premarital incontinence on 
matrimony. But there are effects on the individual which are 
perhaps quite as serious as any that have been mentioned, and 
which also have an important indirect influence on the home. 

1. It tends to deteriorate character by weakening or destroying 
such important traits as altruistic disinterestedness, the sense of 
responsibility, and the habit of self-control. Few will question 
that these are necessary to the individual or the race. Few per- 
sons of experience will question that they suffer under a regime 
of promiscuity or anything resembling that. Every “man ofthe 
world” knows that repeated yielding to sexual impulses soon 
allows them to reach a position of domineering over his life. Nor- 


PREMARITAL INCONTINENCE 59 


mally, this difficulty is corrected by the acceptance of responsibili- 
ties for a wife and children. Sexual impulses, instead of ruling the 
individual for his own selfish gratification regardless of conse- 
quences, are then tied up to the whole of life and made useful. 

These feelings of altruism and parental responsibility have un- 
doubtedly been increased by natural selection. ‘Those who had 
them left offspring to inherit them; those who lacked them left 
fewer or no offspring, because of the customs that discouraged 
parentage outside of marriage. But if promiscuity should be- 
come general, the way would be open for these necessary qualities 
gradually to disappear. 

Both for the individual and for the race, therefore, it is desirable 
that the unselfish responsibility which goes with marriage and 
parenthood should be maintained, and not give place to the selfish 
irresponsibility which goes with promiscuity or free love. 

2. Whatever is true of men in this respect is doubly true of 
women. ‘The sexual problems of the latter are relatively simple 
until they have been ‘‘awakened.”’ As is well known, the sexual 
impulses are diffused in them; while no less strong than in man, 
they are not focused at one point, and are not so easily aroused 
from the physical side. After initiation, however, woman faces 
the same problems as man, perhaps in an even more extreme degree. 
Not only is she then the victim of her own imperious nature, but 
she is also exposed to be the prey of every male of a certain type 
who encounters her. It is a matter of popular and age-long 
experience that women suffer more from irregular sexual relations 
than do men. But a man can not be incontinent unless some 
woman is also incontinent. This means either the maintenance 
of a class of professional prostitutes, which is objectionable for 
reasons too well known to be rehearsed here, or else the continual 
seduction of women who have had no previous sexual experience. 
The latter are then put in the position above sketched. For the 
purpose of the argument of this paragraph, it is not even necessary 
to assume that there is anything “‘sinful’’ about promiscuity. It 
is a mere biological fact that it leads to serious psychological 
consequences for the woman who enters upon it. The man, there- 


60 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


fore, who adheres to the familiar code of male ethics: ‘‘Go as far 
as the girl will let you,” is either grossly ignorant of the feminine 
constitution, or else is assuming a very serious responsibility in 
starting a woman on a path from which, once begun, she can too 
often draw back only with great difficulty and torment. 

There are of course no statistics as to the proportion of young 
people who remain continent before marriage. In parts of Europe, 
it is said to be unusual for any man to enter marriage without hay- 
ing had previous sexual experience of one kind or another. ‘The 
same is true of parts of Latin America. In the United States it 
has sometimes been said that three-fifths of the young men have 
beenincontinent. ‘Thisis probably too high an estimate at present. 
M. W. Peck and F. L. Wells! found, among college graduate men 
whom they examined, that less than two-fifths had had experience 
of sexual intercourse before marriage; and in the majority of these 
cases only once or at least very infrequently. In replies got by 
Paul S. Achilles from 316 New York high school students (male; 
average age 17 years), 7 percent of them claimed to have had 
experience of sexual intercourse. In similar replies obtained from 
40 male and 31 female extension students at Columbia University 
(average ages 22 and 21 respectively), 50 percent of the men and 
22 percent of the women said that they had had sexual experience. 
It is not stated whether some of these were married people or not. 

Whatever the figures may be, any man of experience knows that 
in most cases they represent a small proportion of hardened round- 
ers, and a large proportion of men who have lapsed only a few times, 
perhaps only once, from the standards they hold. Moreover, 
with the increase of sound ideas of mating and reproduction, and 
with the growing repression of commercialized prostitution, it is 


1 Among the incontinent college graduates whom they studied, Dr. Peck and 
Dr. Wells found that a distinct majority reported having had no dealings with 
prostitutes. They consider that in the occasional incontinence of these men 
(of whom 11 out of 12 took the first step before the age of 21), “probably a 
leading factor is response to the invitation of more mature women,” and that 
the supposed urge of passion has played no part: “A normal, coercive, organic 
‘hunger,’ appeasable through organic contacts as such, seems out of the ques- 
tion.” 


PREMARITAL INCONTINENCE 61 


well-nigh certain that the proportion of men who remain continent 
until marriage is growing larger each year in many strata of society. 

It is even more difficult to arrive at any conclusion regarding 
continence among women. Opinions tend to range themselves 
into two groups—that of the unsophisticated who assume that 
all women are ‘‘virtuous” except a few sinners, and that of the 
cynical who assume that there is as much incontinence among 
women as among men. ‘The truth lies somewhere between these 
extremes. Aside from the study of Dr. Achilles, mentioned 
above, the only one known to me is that of Katherine Bement 
Davis, who questioned 1,000 married women, college graduates or 
of similar educational status. Seventy-one, answering anonym- 
ously under conditions of complete secrecy, admitted having had 
sexual intercourse prior to marriage, but in 35 of these cases it was 
only with the man whom they afterward married. Excluding the 
latter leaves only about three in a hundred who were incontinent. 

Regardless of the exact figures, there is unquestionably a great 
difference between those for men and those for women. ‘This 
reflects the double standard of morality, the effect of which was 
to wink at, or even approve, premarital experience on the part 
of men, but to punish severely a woman who followed the same 
course. 

Such a standard was partly based on the biological fact that a 
woman may become pregnant by sexual intercourse, a man not; 
and on the social fact that men wished to keep the lines of inherit- 
ance free from all contamination, because they were responsible 
for the maintenance of the offspring of their wives, and did not wish 
to pay the cost of bringing up some other man’s child. ‘The so- 
called sex necessity of the male, which was often urged to justify 
this double standard, was of course purely fictitious; though it is 
true that man’s sex urge before marriage is more physical, woman’s 
more psychical. 

In a sense, the double standard worked both ways—a fact often 
ignored. While actual sexual intercourse on the part of the man 
was regarded more lightly than in the case of the woman (for the 
reasons named in the preceding paragraph, and others), the man 


62 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


who “‘trifled’”’ with a woman’s serious affections was reprobated 
much more severely than was a woman in the reverse case. The 
lover who jilted his betrothed was looked upon as a scoundrel; 
he was open to physical punishment from her male relatives, if 
they were big enough to administer it, and to damages in a “breach 
of promise” suit, when the ex-betrothed, if a good actress, could 
easily persuade a jury to convey a substantial part of his fortune 
to her. On the other hand, a woman might and often did jilt a 
succession of men, and was merely thought rather smart. 

This reciprocal phase of the double standard was presumably 
based on the idea that marriage was a more serious thing for a 
woman than fora man. But it has no more merit than has the 
commonly discussed phase, and is equally due to become obsolete. 

When one turns to analyze more fully the causes of the existence 
of premarital incontinence in American society, they are found 
to be greatly confused and complicated, but it will not be difficult to 
distangle a few of the important ones, which will be mentioned with- 
out regard to the order of their importance. 

1. Commercialized prostitution, the profits of which depend on 
a continuous supply of new customers, has been responsible for the 
beginning of most premarital incontinence in men. So much non- 
sense has been written about the imperiousness of man’s passion, 
which drove him to incontinence, that it is forgotten that probably 
not one man in a hundred has ever been driven to the first step 
by the imperiousness of this passion. ‘The first offense commonly 
is induced by the gang spirit, the desire to be thought a man, the 
desire for adventure, the satisfaction of curiosity, seduction by an 
older woman'—these factors ranking in importance more or less 
in the order named. ‘To these must be added innumerable cases 
where an ignorant father has given money to his adolescent son 
and advised him to go to a house of prostitution for the assumed 
benefit of his health. 

Most men will, I believe, recognize the truthfulness of this 
analysis. It will be seen that there is no place in it for the im- 
periousness of passion, but that the main influence is commercially 
exploited and advertised prostitution, particularly in a red light 


PREMARITAL INCONTINENCE 63 


district. The abolition of such segregated areas, and the steady 
progress toward the suppression of all commercialized prostitution, 
result in the elimination of nearly all these factors which led to the 
first step. Most of all in this matter, it is the first step that costs 
—too often it leads to others, while, if it is never taken, the young 
man finds no great difficulty in remaining continent until marriage. 

2. Delayed marriage, if accompanied by overstimulation of the 
sexual dispositions, is a fundamental cause of premarital inconti- 
nence. In a sense, it covers nearly everything else, for if people 
married at the age of puberty, (as lower animals do), there would 
be little or no occasion for premarital incontinence. 

The result of evolution, however, which has given man greatly 
increased mental powers, has been to lengthen the period of mental 
preparation, and of physical development as well. Delay in enter- 
ing actively on the sexual life is one of the adaptations that has had 
to go along with this evolution. It is important from a racial, 
as well as from a personal, point of view, that sex should not enter 
to play a distracting réle in the life of youth until mental develop- 
ment is nearly completed. ‘This is one of the reasons why sexual 
activity is not desirable for some years after puberty, although the 
reproductive-organs are ready, in the narrowest sense, for use at 
that time. ‘The sexual impulses are so much stronger than many 
others that, if overstimulated and turned loose at this period, 
they will hold the floor to the exclusion of all rivals. The intel- 
lectual life of a whole nation may suffer if sexual activity is the rule 
among its young people. Competent observers generally agree 
that the Latin American countries, among others, are handicapped 
by precisely this condition. 

Delay in marriage, while an evil in all circumstances, is a much 
less serious evil if it is not accompanied by overstimulation of the 
baulked sexual dispositions. But in modern civilization such over- 
stimulation is difficult to avoid, the whole tone of the daily press, 
the stage, motion pictures, and fiction being one of eroticism, while 
the failure to develop other interests and to furnish young people 
with any other emotional outlet leaves them helpless. The way 
out of this situation will be discussed in Part ITI. 


64 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


3. The third cause which may be mentioned as contributing to 
premarital intercourse is faulty education—using the term in a 
very broad sense, to cover lack of a biological point of view, mis- 
understanding of the psychology of marriage, and faulty training 
in self-control. 

The last-mentioned requirement depends on parents, as it de- 
pends on education beginning in earliest infancy and continuing 
through life.2 But anyone who takes the trouble to do so can in- 
form himself about the biological aspects of the problem. 

In spite of this, it is sometimes asserted that premarital conti- 
nence is a mere Puritan dogma, that it is contrary to the facts and 
implications of science, and that it must be discarded. ‘Those who 
hold this idea (which is most often, no doubt, merely a rationaliza- 
tion of their own overstimulated sexual impulses) usually take their 
stand on a half-digested reading at third hand of doctrines to which 
the Jewish neurologist, Sigmund Freud, has given currency. 

Their argument, in brief, is that the desire for sexual intercourse 
is “natural” and strong, that any thwarting of a strong natural 
desire is harmful to the individual, and that the sexual impulse 
must therefore be “expressed’”’—if finances or any other reason 
cause a delay in marriage, so much the worse for marriage. Young 
people must look after themselves; ‘‘we’ll be young only once.” 

Those who hold any such idea as the foregoing have overlooked 
some essential facts, which J. A. Hadfield summarizes effectively. 

If one is going to do the “natural” thing, he must do the whole 
of it. He can not pick and choose, taking what part of “Nature” 
he wants and throwing aside all the rest. Sexual intercourse is 
natural, but monogamy is no less natural. The parental instinct 


2 Some educators make a great mistake by representing to young men that 
they have a desperate and terrible struggle ahead of them in order to ‘“‘sub- 
jugate their passions.” Such an attitude makes many men think success is 
unattainable. Worse, it is incorrect. The average young man who avoids 
overstimulation will not find that continence makes any overwhelming demand 
on his self-mastery. The college students interviewed by Dr. Peck and Dr. 
Wells agreed that “spooning,” the reading of problem novels, and the viewing 
of problem plays, increased their difficulties; and that physical and mental 
activity were the greatest aids to self-control. 


PREMARITAL INCONTINENCE 65 


and the herd instinct are just as much a part of one’s nature as 
is the mating instinct. If one is going with Nature, he must go 
the whole way, and that means to go to monogamy, which is the 
final (up to the present, that is) development of evolution, sup- 
planting the mere random and uncontrolled impulse to mate of 
which promiscuity is the present expression, and which has not, 
so far as the evidence indicates, been the normal condition of man- 
kind or any of its ancestors for several million years. 

Libertinism does not satisfy other fundamental instincts of 
mankind, but antagonizes them. Moreover, it does not satisfy 
more than a part—and that the smallest part—of the individual’s 
own sexual craving, for it ordinarily gratifies only the physical 
aspect of this craving. But Dr. Freud himself has insisted that 
the instinct® for sexual intercourse has both physical and mental 
components, and that it is the latter, not the former, which is most 
often repressed. He points out what every experienced person 
knows, that for complete satisfaction there must be perfect mental 
as well as physical unity between the mates, and that gratification 
of the physical component without mental harmony at the same 
time is certain to result in still further damage to the personality, 
by the accumulation of psychic tension. 

It must be clear to anyone that, under modern social conditions, 
this complete mental and physical fusion can exist only in legal 
marriage; for outside of marriage it is known by both parties to be 
illicit and reprobated by conventional society. The individual 
who attempts to get rid of inner conflicts by sexual license therefore 
not only fails to do this, but gets into more conflicts than he faced 
before. 

But, the “emancipated” man or woman replies, why worry about 
what Mrs. Grundy thinks? Ignore the conventions of society, 
live above them, and there will be no conflict. 

This is easier said than done, for few persons indeed have been 
brought up in such an atmosphere that the conventions and tabus 


3 Tn this section I am using the term “instinct” in its popular sense. What- 
ever opinion one may hold as to the ultimate nature and units of instinctive 
action, the effect is the same, for the present purpose. 


66 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


of society have played no part in their lives even in infancy. 
Everyone feels the impalpable pressure of unseen social conven- 
tions, whether he is aware of it or not, and the attempt to live 
“above” them is pretty certain to end in disaster, sooner or later. 

For confirmation of this, one need only turn to the evidence, 
In the early days of psychoanalysis, some analysts who had patients 
suffering from baulked sexual dispositions did advise intercourse 
as a relief. They testify that the prescription not only failed to 
cure, but often made matters worse than before, for the mere 
expression iz conduct of an instinctive tendency does not mean that 
it is liberated psychologically from the complex that has given the 
trouble, or that the patient is free from his conflict. 

To put the matter more simply, mental and nervous disturbances 
due to lack of a normal sexual life can not be cured by mere physical 
intercourse, for they are due primarily to mental, not physical, 
factors (otherwise masturbation would be sufficient for a cure); 
and these mental factors are not eliminated, but rather aggravated, 
by mere physical satisfaction of the sexual instincts. In the 
development of the personality, coitus is constructive if in its 
proper place, destructive otherwise. 

From this brief excursion over the well-trodden paths of Freudian 
psychology, it will perhaps be evident that any attempt to justify 
premarital incontinence through it is hopeless. It is of no use to 
shut one’s eyes to the customs and institutions of society: they 
exist because there is a reason for their existence; and so far as 
monogamy is concerned, it was pointed out in Part I that it exists 
because it satisfies fundamental needs of the race. The monog- 
amous family is an adaptation, favored by natural selection, to 
ensure better progress of the group, better protection of infancy, 
and greater individual happiness. It is therefore the scientifically 
correct and up-to-date thing, and libertines who exploit their own 
inclinations under the guise of Progress are merely arguing their 
own ignorance and adding to their own mental confusion. 

Far from making for progress in society, a general attempt to 
release the sexual instincts from social restraint would make society 
impossible, just as would a general attempt to release any other 


PREMARITAL INCONTINENCE 67 


strong instinct from social restraint. If it is proper for people to 
have sexual intercourse outside of marriage because they have a 
strong impulse in that direction, why is it not equally proper to 
satisfy all other strong impulses as they arise? Most men have 
felt the impulse to kill an opponent in a quarrel—why not obey it? 
Why not praise the soldier for desertion on the firing line, the thief 
for walking off with one’s pocket book? He has had a baulked 
disposition, and could not be expected to suffer by repressing it, 
thereby becoming the victim of an inner conflict. I have suggested 
this line of thought in Part I, but it is so pertinent that it is worth 
mentioning here again, for it contains the key to many problems 
of the conservation of the family. 

From every scientific point of view, the case is clear. The men 
and women who live promiscuously before marriage are not living 
“according to nature.” They have simply failed to keep up with 
nature—they are at least some millions of years behind the times. 
Premarital incontinence is damaging alike to the individual and 
to the race. It makes people not more fit but less fit for marriage, 
if it does not prevent their marriage altogether. While it has had 
a eugenic value in sterilizing the inferior, it is time that this same 
result be got by more efficient and less costly ways. For the pro- 
tection of men, women, and children, either singly or as a family, 
every effort is therefore justified that will tend to reduce the 
amount of premarital incontinence. 


Ill. DELAYED MARRIAGE 


The average age of first marriage of the white population of the 
United States is about 27 years for men and 24 for women. 

Biologically, marriage several years earlier than this would be 
advantageous, yet this is not a bad age, if it were the rule and not 
merely an average. ‘The fact that it is an average, however, means 
that there are as many who marry above that age as below it. 
If there is any difference in the inherent quality of the two groups, 
there will be serious racial differences in the results. 

It is notorious that there are differences. Negroes marry 
younger than whites, for instance. Graduates of women’s colleges, 
instead of marrying at 24, marry several years later (and in a 
large percentage of cases do not marry at all). 

As these problems form a main topic of applied eugenics, with 
which Roswell H. Johnson and I have dealt in another book; 
and as apart from this the problems created by delayed marriage 
enter into almost every page of the present book, they will not be 
discussed at length in this section. The present summary state- 
ment is included merely for convenience. 

The causes of delayed marriage are almost wholly social or 
economic. ‘They reflect the increased demands for higher educa- 
tion, the necessity for longer preparation before men are ready to 
earn a living, the higher standards of living which make women 
unwilling to marry a man who has a small salary, the increased 
desire for freedom to pursue one’s own inclinations, and so on. 

The consequences include such serious matters as: 

1. A tendency toward the increase of premarital incontinence. 

2. A tendency toward the increase of prostitution. ‘The charge 
has often been made that prostitution is supported not so much by 
young, unmarried men as by older, married men. There is no 
conclusive evidence on this point, and one must depend largely on 
impressions. My own, based on a somewhat extended, first-hand 

68 


DELAYED MARRIAGE 69 


observation of prostitution in civilian communities during the 
war, is that unmarried men preponderate largely among the 
patrons. JI think this is becoming more true all the time, as prosti- 
tution is more closely repressed. It is continually more difficult 
for a married man to frequent prostitutes without risk of detection, 
and the consequences of detection are continually more serious, 
as public opinion is aroused on this subject. 

To the extent that married men are patrons of prostitution, the 
cause is probably (a) that they became used to sexual variety in 
the period before marriage, (b) that they do not understand or 
are incapable of understanding real love, and (c) that their wives 
do not enter normally into the physical side of the marriage rela- 
tion. Wrong education and delayed marriage are largely responsi- 
ble in each case. 

3. Increase of venereal diseases, growing out of the two factors 
previously enumerated: 

4, Fewer children, because (a) people who marry late have a 
shorter period left when they are capable of having children, (b) 
they lose inclination for children, and (c) sterility is more likely 
to have set in. 

5. Neuroses and other mental disturbances, due to a strain or a 
supposed strain on the emotions, resulting from continence accom- 
panied by overstimulation, or from illegitimate incontinence, or 
from deprivation of children. 

6. Sterility. Apart from such obvious causes as gonorrhea, 
delay in childbearing frequently leads to barrenness. Some of 
the causes of this are well-known, some are obscure. But the 
fact is clear. Just as nothing succeeds like success, so nothing 
promotes fertility like bearing a child or two. 

7. Unhappy marriages, due to all the foregoing causes together 
with the fact that older men and women are set in their ways and 
do not adjust themselves to marriage so easily. 

To these conditions, and many others that will occur to the 
reader, must be added the special penalties which the woman 
suffers, in more painful or dangerous childbirth and greater infant 
mortality, as well as ovarian diseases. 


70 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


Many of the changes necessary to bring about earlier marriage 
in the part of the population where it is most needed are discussed 
in Part III. Perhaps the most hopeful change, in this connection, 
is that which is now slowly occurring in the educational world, 
where an attempt is being made to increase the flexibility of the 
system so that superior students can get through more rapidly, 
without having to drag along in lockstep with the mediocre and the 
dullards. If the efforts in this direction are pushed to their logical 
conclusion, there seems to be no reason why a young person of 
superior ability should not shorten the present period of preparation 
for life by from three to five years. ‘This would mean the possibil- 
ity, in favorable cases, of marriage just that much sooner than at 
present. From the standpoint of eugenics, then, as well as from 
others, the development of the school system in this direction is 
to be welcomed enthusiastically. 

Some changes of public sentiment are desirable, so that young 
people will not feel it necessary, at the beginning of their married 
life, to live on the same scale that their parents have attained after 
a quarter of a century of effort. Many a young couple wants to 
marry, and could marry and live in comfort, but postpones marriage 
from a feeling that it would require too great a sacrifice of its arti- 
ficial and ill-chosen standards. 

On the other hand, many a father could easily aid his son to get 
a start in life, but does not do so. Sometimes the son refuses aid, 
having a false feeling of pride about “standing on his own feet.” 
If the son also refused a legacy at his father’s death, his feeling of 
pride would be consistent; but this has rarely been known to occur. 
A wise father will remember that his wealth is going to his children 
eventually, and will not hesitate to let them use a little more of it 
in his own life-time, if such use will mean earlier and happier 
marriage for them. 

If such a practice were so universal as to have the compulsion of 
custom, it might work unfavorably, for parents would then be 
tempted to limit the number of their children to those whom they 
could supply with ample marriage portions. Something of this 
sort seems to occur in parts of Europe where every daughter must 


DELAYED MARRIAGE 71 


be provided with a dowry. But so long as the practice is voluntary 
and applies only to those parents who have a surplus, there seems 
to be no reason against it. 

In the interests of eugenics, the business world might well take a 
firm stand against the practice of paying young men in certain pro- 
fessions only a nominal wage at first. A young lawyer, for instance, 
may get his B.A. at a college of liberal arts, follow this with a four- 
year course in law, and emerge at the age of 26 or 28, when he should 
be already married. He enters some firm with a high reputation, 
and is compelled to work for several years for $10 or $15 a week, on 
the supposition that the mere honor of working for such a famous 
partnership is compensation enough. The same attitude prevails 
in some of the more respectable banks, and many other businesses; 
while every young physician expects to serve as hospital interne for 
a year or two, for nothing more than his board and clothes. Col- 
leges not only offer many fellowships that carry pay inadequate for 
a married man, but in some cases even make celibacy a requirement 
for the tenure of these positions. If the industrial world can con- 
sider the justice of a minimum wage for the unskilled, it would 
seem reasonable to ask that young men of the type under consider- 
ation here—men from good families and endowed with superior 
ability—be recognized as worth at least a living wage, and be no 
longer required to postpone marriage in order to work for mere 
honor. 


IV. BROKEN HOMES 


The break-up of homes is generally supposed to be more frequent 
each year. There is no way of getting at the actual number, for 
they include many different types, and in some instances the fact 
that the home is virtually broken is known only to the intimates 
of those concerned. Broken homes may for the present purpose 
be roughly classified as follows: 


1. Internally broken, but outwardly intact. 

2. Outwardly as well as inwardly broken, by 
a. Abandonment, desertion, or non-support; 
b. Separation mutually agreed upon; 
Co Divorce. 


In a sense, a home is also broken by the death of husband or 
wife; but as other members of the family usually rise to the occasion 
and preserve many of the features of home life, this case will not 
be discussed in the present section. 

Divorce is often thought of as constituting the real problem of 
broken homes, but this is an error, for it is not the decree of a 
court that breaks a home: it is the internal conditions. Divorce, 
therefore, is merely one evidence of the existence of broken homes. 
Any honest attempt to deal with divorce or any of the other special 
problems involved must begin at the beginning and inquire what 
breaks homes, rather than spend time arguing about how, when a 
home has once been broken irremediably, the fact can best be 
registered in legal form. 

Taking divorce records, however, as the only authentic data on 
the number of broken homes, it is known that they have been 
increasing rapidly in the United States—doubling and quadrupling 
with the decades until there is now a divorce recorded for every 
seven marriages—a rate higher than that of any foreign country 


Pe 


BROKEN HOMES 73 


and twice as high as most. To cite only some recent years, the 
figures are: 


YEAR MARRIAGES DIVORCES 
1916 1,040,684 112,036 
1922 1,126,418 148,554 
1923 1,223,825 165,139 


It will be seen that divorces are still increasing in number more 
rapidly than marriages. Thus while marriages increased in 1923 
over 1922 by 8.4 percent, divorces increased by 11 percent. In 
some states and cities, there is now a divorce for every three, or 
even every two, marriages.! 

The problem of broken homes has, as was intimated above, been 
much obscured by the fact that it was popularly assumed to be 
equivalent to the problem of divorce, that it was treated almost 
wholly from the legal and economic sides, and that the atmosphere 
was clouded by lawyers’ technicalities and quibbles over non- 
support, restitution of conjugal rights, forgiveness and resumption 
of cohabitation, separation from bed and board, interlocutory de- 
crees, alimony, and so on. These matters are biologically im- 
material, and the present treatment will largely ignore them, en- 
deavoring to get down to the biological conditions underlying the 


1 This form of comparison, which is made by the Census Bureau and widely 
circulated, is not statistically justifiable. Since a divorce usually follows only 
after some years of marriage, the number should not be contrasted with the 
number of marriages in the same year, but with the number of marriages that 
occurred say five years previously. Moreover, some marriages are terminated 
by death of one partner, before they have a chance to appear in the divorce 
record. Both of these sources of error tend to make the divorce rate appear 
even lower than it is, in comparison with the marriage rate. Again, in many 
cities and states the number of marriages represents the resident population, 
while the divorce records are filled with transients, who have come from other 
states for the sole purpose of divorce. It would be impossible, with the imper- 
fection of American vital statistics, to avoid all the fallacies, and the comparison 
given above is therefore accepted, with this warning to the reader against taking 
it at its face value. 


74 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


break-up of homes. This is the more necessary because the reasons 
set forth in pleas for divorce are almost never the true reasons. 
Usually the separating partners lie fluently to suit their own pur- 
poses; often they themselves do not know what are the real, funda- 
mental reasons that have caused their matrimonial bark to drift 
on the rocks. It is high time, therefore, that the point of view 
were changed for a while, and divorce studied from a different 
angle. 

In passing judgment on a marriage, the interests to be considered, 
in order of importance, are: (1) the welfare of society or of the 
race, (2) of the children, (3) of husband and wife. The usual view 
looks in a mirror instead of at the facts, putting the interests of 
husband and wife paramount and light-heartedly assuming that if 
their whims are sufficiently consulted, their children and the race 
will profit accordingly. Reformers of the marriage institution 
mostly emphasize this tendency, instead of breaking away from it, 
and their writings are full of impassioned and often persuasive 
pleas for the sacredness of personal freedom, the immorality of a 
marriage in which love has died, and the shocking fate of children 
compelled to live in an inharmonious household. While there is 
some truth in all this, and the interests of the three are closely 
interrelated, yet one must adopt a starting point. 

Here is the fork of the road. It is necessary for each one to clear 
his mind, before discussing broken homes, and to take his stand 
either on the side of the egoists, to whom nothing looms so large 
as their own pleasure, or on the side of those who believe that only 
in a strong and progressive society in which children are given first 
consideration, is the greatest and most lasting happiness of hus- 
band and wife, and the greatest welfare of all, to be found. 

From the latter standpoint, which is here adopted, the common 
plea that love is the only justification for marriage, and that when 
it has ceased to exist, it is worse to compel people to live together 
than to allow them to separate, requires careful analysis. In the 
first place, “love’’ does not mean the same to any two persons. 
The romantic and highly egoistic idea of love, which is reflected 
in most present-day literature and art, is a relatively late develop- 


BROKEN HOMES 75 


ment in civilization, being little heard of before the time of the 
Crusades, when returning knights imported oriental habits of reflec- 
tion and poetic analysis of love.2_ Many of the people who sing of 


2 The Arabian Nights furnish abundant illustrations of the oriental attitude 
toward love. An earlier illustration, given by ‘Ali ibn Husain al-Mastdi 
(died about 956 A.D.) in his Murij al-Dhahab wa Ma‘adin al-Jawahir (Mead- 
ows of Gold and Mines of Precious Stones) vi, 368ff, is derived from a gather- 
ing at the home of Yahya ibn Khalid al-Barmak, tutor of the Caliph Harin 
al-Rashid. This nobleman proposed to his guests that each should give a 
summary definition of love. 

‘Ali ibn al-Haitham: ‘Love is the fruit of the conformity of species and the 
index of the fusion of two souls. It emanates from divine beauty, from the 
pure and subtle principle of substance. Its extent is unlimited; its develop- 
ment a cause of loss to the body.” 

Abt Malikan of Hadhramaut: ‘‘Love is a magic breath; it is more hidden 
and more incandescent than a live coal in the ashes; it exists only by the union of 
two souls and the mingling of two forms. It penetrates into and infuses itself 
into the heart, as the moisture of a fog does into the pores of the earth. It 
reigns over everything, conquers all intelligences, and commands all wills.” 

Muhammad ibn al-Hudhail: “Love places its seal on the eyes and its imprint 
on the heart; it circulates through the body and penetrates to the depths of the 
entrails. It throws thought into disorder and the intelligence into mobility; 
with it nothing remains unaltered; no promise binds it; all misfortunes descend 
onit. Love is a drop dipped from the ocean of death, a swallow taken from the 
reservoirs of annihilation. But it draws its expansive force from nature itself 
and from the beauty which resides in all created beings. The man who loves is 
prodigal, deaf to the appeals of prudence, and insensible to reproaches.” 

Hisham ibn al-Hakim of Kifa: “Destiny has made of love a net, from which 
can escape only hearts that are sincere in misfortune. When a lover falls into 
its depths and is caught in its meshes, he can never emerge from it safe and sane, 
nor can he avoid it by flight. Love is born of the beauty of the human figure 
and of the affinity and sympathy between souls. With it death penetrates to 
the entrails and to the depths of the heart; the most elegant tongue is frozen; 
the king becomes a subject, the master becomes a slave and abases himself 
before the lowest of his servitors.” 

Ibrahim ibn Yassar al-Naththaim: “Love is more evasive than a mirage, 
more rapid than wine circulating in the arteries. It is a delicate clay baked 
in the oven of divine power. So long as it is restrained, its fruits are full of 
flavor; but if it excedes its bounds it becomes a mortal madness, a malady 
whose ravages are terrible and irremediable. Like a cloud, it dissolves in rain 
on human hearts; there it causes trouble to germinate and brings grief to fruition. 
The man conquered by love suffers without respite; he even heaves his bosom 


76 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


it so enthusiastically areneurotics. On the other hand, many people 
are quite incapable of such love, who are nevertheless capable of 
happy marriage and the successful rearing of a family. 

Examination will show that the romantic love on which the 
advocates of divorce by mutual consent are wont to insist so fer- 
vently is essentially the love that is felt in youth—the mating love. 
But it is absurd to suppose, as the reformers do, that this love can, 
or should, exist unchanged throughout life. There must be an 
evolution in the feeling of love, as in other things. In normal hu- 
man beings the evolution is something like this: | 

1. The infant loves himself. He is concerned wholly with what 
he can get out of the world, and seeks continually to gratify himself 
by getting pleasurable sensations. 

2. The child goes a step farther, and begins to love his parents 
(especially the one of opposite sex); then others who are near to 
him and from whom he benefits. 

3. About the time of puberty, the affections are largely directed 
toward those of the same sex (i.e., homosexual). This is the age 
when a boy is loyal to “the gang,’”’ while girls often have “‘crushes”’ 
with schoolmates or teachers of the same sex. 

4. After the age of puberty, the youth begins to take an interest : 
in the opposite sex outside the family circle. This period of “puppy 
love” is sometimes painful to bystanders; but so are various other 
manifestations of adolescence. The period is characterized by 
normal and acute interest not in a single person of the opposite sex, 
but in all, though preference is shown for various individuals at 
various times. It is the age of the flapper, and of flirtation; it is 
a preparation for marriage, in which, by the familiar process of trial 
and error, the boy or girl is developing the emotional nature, 
establishing ideals, and getting ready to mate. It is followed by 

5. The period of mating, in which the affections are at last fixed 





only with an effort. Paralysis menaces him: constantly plunged in melancholy 
he passes his nights without sleep, his days without peace; grief makes him hun- 
gry but he is nourished only by his sighs.” 

And so on through a long line of other worthies. All this is quite in the 
modern style, of which one will find very few examples in classical antiquity. 


BROKEN HOMES 77 


upon a single person, and marriage takes place. Life is now nor- 
mally suffused with sexual feelings for some years, unless the edge 
has been taken off this period by premarital incontinence, in which 
case satiety may manifest itself rapidly. The saying of Alexander 
Dumas, Jr., that within two weeks after marriage every man feels 
he has made a mistake in marrying, is not true, but it has an ele- 
ment of truth in it in so far as premarital incontinence followed by 
rapid satiety in marriage tends to produce a feeling of revulsion. 

6. Within a few years, this phase of love is normally enlarged 
by the arrival of children, and parental love becomes an im- 
portant part of adult life, the love of the mate not occupying the 
exclusive place that it did in the previous period. S. T. Coleridge 
throws a sidelight on this in his Table Talk of September 27, 1830. 
So-and-so, he remarks, ‘‘once said that he could make nothing of 
love, except that it was friendship accidentally combined with 
desire. Whence I conclude that he was never in love. For what 
shall we say of the feelings which a man of sensibility has toward 
his wife with her baby at her breast! How pure from sensual 
desire! Yet how different from friendship!” 

7. As the strength of all physical feelings wanes with advancing 
age, this sort of love is again gradually broadened into a love for 
all humanity, which finds its outlet in benevolence and philan- 
thropy, and remains until the end of life, although there is a tem- 
porary flare-up of sexual interest at one period (in women, about the 
menopause; in men, usually between 50 and 60), as if the organism, 
realizing that it was rapidly reaching the point where its funda- 
mental purpose of reproduction could no longer be fulfilled, wanted 
to make the most of its few remaining opportunities. The soberest 
men and women sometimes become foolish at this point. Whena 
prominent person suddenly breaks into print as a champion of 
free love, or immerses himself in sexual studies, reference to Who’s 
Who nearly always confirms the suspicion that he is at the age of 
final incandescence. 

This evolution of the emotional life, which is here presented in a 
much simplified and inadequate outline,’ is of the highest impor- 


3 There are, of course, other points of view from which the same subject may 
be analysed. 


78 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


tance in any consideration of happiness in married life. While 
every normal person goes through this development, the stages 
are not sharply separated. Moreover, the feelings of no stage 
are wholly lost; they are merely expanded and subordinated 
as the next stage is entered. ‘The person who expects to remain 
all the rest of his life in any one of these stages except the last is 
either defective or a fool. | 

There are, nevertheless, all too many cases of arrested develop- 
ment. Many a spoiled child really never gets beyond the first 
stage, and goes through life trying to force everybody and every- 
thing to minister to his own pleasure; indulging in a tantrum or 
developing symptoms of hysteria when he can not have his own 
way. Many another never outgrows the post-adolescent stage: 
thus the flapper with gray hair, and the elderly male flirt who is 
constantly trying to make an impression on young women (“No 
fool like an old fool!’”’) are familiar to all. 

Such an analysis simplifies the question of love in marriage. 
The man or woman who finds, after a few years of married life, 
that the old thrill is being lost, and who seeks continually to renew 
it by flirtation or adultery, is simply confessing that he or she is 
suffering from arrested development—that evolution is not proceed- 
ing normally. Asa matter of fact, such people have usually never 
freed themselves from the auto-erotic stage of childhood; marriage 
means to them merely the opportunity to secure pleasurable sensa- 
tions. Such individuals are always unhappily mated. When 
their ‘‘love” cools, they feel that they must rekindle the fire by 
finding a new mate—either legally or illegally; and so continue 
through life until satiety or physical decline leaves them to seek 
satisfaction in salacious fiction or in the bald-headed row at “eg 
shows.” 

Is it necessary to remould the institution of marriage, merely 
to gratify the auto-erotic cravings of these cases of arrested de- 
velopment? Would it not be saner to alter modern educational 
methods in such a way as to permit these people to go through the 
normal course of development, which ends by building up a home 
full of children that radiates altruism into all the activities of life? 


BROKEN HOMES 79 


Before agreeing, then, to the cant phrase that it is immoral for 
two people to continue to live together when love has ceased to 
exist between them, one must inquire just what love means in this 
connection. No one can or should continue long in the intense, 
auto-erotic form of “love” that neurasthenics and reformers have 
in mind; and many people (perhaps most, if the whole world is 
considered) who are capable of happy marriage and successful 
parenthood, are not capable of any such introspective expression of 
love. 

In some ways it would be preferable to turn the statement 
around, and to say that marriage is immoral if hatred exists between 
the partners. But this is largely subject to control. The selfish, 
fickle, and feebly-inhibited will always give trouble in this respect. 
Marriage can not be “factory rebuilt” for such defectives. Some 
people never find happiness in marriage, no matter how many times 
they try their luck; the same people often never find happiness in 
work or in anything else. Happiness simply is not in them. Is it 
not time to realize that persons so constituted can not adjust to 
any adult situation? And is it not stupid to talk of remaking the 
mores for the benefit of a small minority who are hopeless anyhow, 
really of defective mental constitution? If there is a remedy for 
this evil, it is in early training, mental hygiene, and biological 
education, not in trial marriage or easy divorce, 

An analysis of love, then, suggests the solution to many problems 
of broken homes. Here again, it is found that society is at work, 
in its usual way, to settle the problem at the wrong end—to wail 
over the consequences instead of removing the causes. Any 
movement to prevent broken homes by such measures as trial 
marriage and divorce by mutual consent is a crime against the race 
unless it is at the same time accompanied by a much more vigorous 
effort to remove the causes of broken homes. 

Approaching a little nearer to individual broken homes, it will be 
found that at the bottom of most of them (some students have said 
90 percent or more) there is the fundamental problem of sexual 
maladjustment. People who are perfectly adjusted to each other 
in this respect do not seek separation, either by desertion or divorce. 


80 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


This fact frequently does not transpire in cases of publicity— 
frequently, indeed, discordant partners themselves do not realize 
just what the trouble is. But lawyers and judges who hear many 
divorce petitions know that this is the truth. It is safe to say 
that sexual maladjustment plays a part in almost every divorce, 
and that it is the most important factor in a majority, even though 
not known to be such by the parties concerned. Could anything 
be more illogical than the present policy of society, to (1) let people 
marry in ignorance, (2) let them divorce because of this ignorance, 
and (3) then let them, still ignorant, make new matings, many of 
which will be broken up in the same way and for the same reason? 

Obviously, here is one of the strategic points for an attack against 
the evil. A clearer understanding of what love really means, a 
better preparation for marriage on the part of both men and women, 
more deliberate and carefully considered mating, and clinics which, 
when necessary, could furnish enlightenment concerning particular 
problems, would do more to abate the evil than all legal reforms 
put together. 

Beyond this, there are of course innumerable minor problems, 
legal, economic, social, and what not, which require study and 
action. ‘To discuss these fully would both be outside the province 
of this book, and unnecessary, because these are precisely the phases 
of the whole question that are already getting attention—much 
more than they deserve, in comparison with the fundamental issues. 
It is worth noting, in passing, that marriages in which husband 
and wife are of different race or nationality figure preponderantly 
in the divorce record; and that to a large extent divorce is sought 
by those who have neither children nor property to hold them 
together. In a study of divorce petitions filed in Minneapolis, 
Mildred D. Mudgett found that half of the applicants were clients 
of some charitable agency, and most of the families had court 
records for one cause or another—one family had appeared in all 
the courts of the city, a total of 28 times, another 21, and so on 
down. ‘There is a great danger in looking at the mass statistics of 
divorce, and becoming alarmed over them, without analyzing 
them to find just what sort of people contribute them. It is 


BROKEN HOMES 81 


known that both the delinquent rich and the delinquent poor 
appear in large ratio in the records of all forms of broken homes. 
Is the institution of monogamy to be remodeled for the benefit of 
these two classes, or is some other remedy more appropriate? 

Even after the necessary changes have been made, so that people 
will have a wider choice in marriage, be educated to choose more 
wisely, and understand the physiology and psychology of love, 
there will remain enough cases of broken homes to require some 
sort of court action. As to desertion, abandonment, non-support, 
and the like, the obvious thing to do is to bring back the departing 
partner and, by social case work or law enforcement, to adjust the 
difficulty in some more intelligent and effective way than is involved 
where a man or woman merely packs and departs, leaving no 
address. 

For such cases, and for all divorce cases filed, there should be 
clinics, to which reference will be made in the first instance. Here 
investigation would often remove causes of misunderstanding and 
friction (particularly if due to ignorance about love and marriage), 
and the matrimonial ship might start again on its course in a 
smoother sea. Even today, humane lawyers and intelligent judges, 
though little qualified for the attempt, succeed in effecting many 
reconciliations. 

The requirement in some states that all applications for divorce 
be published and all hearings be public has been harmful. Under 
these conditions of pitiless publicity both parties bow their necks 
and are not in a mood to consider reconciliation—self-esteem is too 
much injured. Mutual consent and collusion, which, under 
present laws, are unlimited sources of fraud and deceit, may make 
such publicity necessary, but it would probably be just as effective 
if the facts were made public only six months after a divorce is 
granted, and not published at all when a divorce is denied. The 
_break-up of many homes that are only slightly cracked would 
thereby be prevented. 

Certainly it is an outrage that a biological question should be 
made a matter of typical police court procedure, with shyster 
lawyers ranting and bullying the witnesses for the edification of 


82 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


eager spectators. It is hard to see why lawyers properly have any 
business at all in such a matter. A Court of Domestic Relations, 
with its own investigators and the routine assistance of a competent 
clinic, should handle all problems involving broken homes, and 
lawyers should not be permitted to make a living by exploiting 
family differences. Since they get a fee for securing a divorce, 
and nothing for effecting a reconciliation, it is too much to expect 
that they will be as much interested in the latter as in the former 
result. Many—to their honor—do seek, and often effect, recon- 
ciliations, but they are not specially qualified for such an effort and 
should be superseded by those who are better trained for the 
attempt. The situation is worsened by the fact that divorce prac- 
tice is either in the hands of young attorneys, who have to take 
anything they can get in order to live, or of men who are not the 
most reputable in the profession. ‘The average lawyer with self- 
respect and high standards despises divorce work and will not take 
it if he can avoid it. | 

From the foregoing, it ought to be clear that ‘“‘mutual consent” 
is not an adequate excuse for the break-up of a home. In many 
cases incompatibility can be cured by re-education more satisfacto- 
rily than by divorce. Grounds that are really valid, from a eugenic 
viewpoint, include such as insanity or other serious mental dis- 
ability, chronic alcoholism, long imprisonment for crime, and 
extreme cruelty or other evidence that the offender is not normal. 
In these cases the innocent partner should be given an opportunity 
to establish a new home and contribute children to society, while 
the offending one should be prevented from future reproduction. 

At first sight it would appear that no grounds could commend 
themselves more to a biologist than infertility and impotence. 
But neither case is so simple as it may seem. 

Fritz Lenz has pointed out that if infertility were admitted 
without question, in petitions for divorce, the way would be open 
to unlimited abuse. People could cohabit for a time, with contra- 
ception or abortion, and then ask for divorce on the ground that the 
union was childless: it would be extremely difficult to disprove 
their claim. 


BROKEN HOMES 83 


Impotence in man is often wholly mental in origin, due to his 
own wrong education or that of his wife. Reference to a clinic 
is the correct procedure. 

In sum, the attempt to deal with broken homes by the customary 
legal palliatives is limited in its usefulness. Whatever is done, 
there should be uniform legislation, instead of the present chaotic 
condition in which each state makes different requirements. But 
the real hope for success is in prevention rather than cure. It is 
foolish to waste time on a “‘divorce problem.” The real problem 
is to prevent unhappy marriages by (1) better education for mar- 
riage and (2) better selection of mates. After all this, if there are 
still difficulties, a cliniccando much, The actual legal registration 
of the fact of a broken home is the least of all problems. If the 
energy now directed toward getting “reforms” in the divorce laws 
were directed for a time toward making marriage more carefully 
considered and intelligently entered, the results would be sur- 
prising. 


V. PROSTITUTION 


Prostitution, sometimes referred to as the oldest of professions, 
has been in existence, in a multiplicity of forms, since the beginning 
of history, in all civilized and many uncivilized countries. So 
varied have been its manifestations that it has even been difficult 
to agree on a definition of it. For the purpose of the present dis- 
cussion, it will perhaps be sufficient to fall back on common usage, 
defining prostitution as more or less promiscuous sexual intercourse 
in which a woman gives her body for hire (not necessarily paid in 
cash, but often in some other form of remuneration, as clothes or 
entertainment). 

It is naturally impossible to arrive at any exact idea of the 
number of women engaged in prostitution, or the number of men 
who are their regular or occasional patrons. Some fantastic 
figures have been in circulation. Among the more reliable calcula- 
tions is that of the Chicago Vice Commission, which supposed that 
there were 5,000 commercial prostitutes in that city in 1911. In- 
vestigators in San Francisco (1917) believed there were 1,000 prosti- 
tutes in the segregated district, popularly known as the Barbary 
Coast, and 3,000 more scattered throughout the city. George J. 
Kneeland estimated 25,000 for the borough of Manhattan alone 
(1911) in his report on Commercialized Prostitution in New York. 
This has been thought by many to be an over-estimate. According 
to much more thorough investigations which Bascom Johnson 
records there were in Manhattan in 1921 not more than 3,000 
prostitutes. 

The causes which have created prostitution are extremely numer- 
ous and diverse, hence an analysis is not simple. Obviously the 
institution represents a partial breakdown or inadequacy of the 
ordinary family. For the present purpose I believe it will be most 
useful to attack the question from a little different point of view, 
by inquiring first the reasons why women become prostitutes, 
and secondly the reason why men become patrons of prostitutes. 

84 


PROSTITUTION 85 


Such an approach is quite contrary to that of a certain school of 
writers, which holds that the only reason for the existence of prosti- 
tution is the depravity of the male sex. It is true that if there 
were no patrons there would be no prostitutes. But it is naive to 
suppose that the demand is wholly created by the patrons. Pros- 
titution is a business—hence the demand is fostered by advertis- 
ing, solicitation, and every means that can be devised to create new 
customers and keep old ones. The prostitute does whatever she 
can in this direction, and she is helped by innumerable middlemen 
—the army of parasites who live, directly or indirectly, off her 
earnings. Hence any attempt to eliminate prostitution by attack- 
ing solely the men who patronize it is inadequate. They should 
be dealt with vigorously, but the easiest and quickest results are 
to be had from attacking the business agents and property owners. 
On the other hand, it is certainly as much of an offence against so- 
ciety to buy as to sell, in this business, and the males who patronize 
prostitution should be prosecuted at least as vigorously as the 
females whom they patronize. 

Returning to the analysis of reasons why women take up prosti- 
tution as a career, one recognizes that there are as many different 
reasons as there are prostitutes, and that no easy generalization 
will do more than blur the picture. Nevertheless, it is possible to 
classify some of the reasons roughly in a number of overlapping 
groups, of which the following particularly deserve consideration. 

1. Biological. The existence of girls with (a) strong sexual im- 
pulses and (b) weak inhibitions. From one-third to one-half of all 
commercial prostitutes examined in the United States have been 
found to be feebleminded. Most of the rest are mentally defective 
in one way or another. Jau Don Ball and Hayward G. Thomas 
determined that 97 percent of the 320 prostitutes on the Barbary 
Coast in 1915-1917 were mentally abnormal. Walter L. Treadway 
ascertained that 80 percent of 206 women (147 white, 59 Negro) 
whom he examined at the State Industrial Farm for Women, 
Lansing, Kansas, had an abnormal personal make-up, and 55 per- 
cent had some definite mental defect, which in almost every case 
was directly accountable for their life of prostitution. L. O. 


86 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


Weldon examined 100 delinquent white women in Louisville, Ky., 
and found 38 of them definitely feebleminded, 43 constitutional 
psychopathic inferiors, and 12 with various psychotic conditions, 
leaving only 7 of the 100 who could by any stretch of the imagi- 
nation be called mentally normal. Such evidence might be 
multiplied indefinitely: the illustrations given have been chosen 
merely because they were made by trained investigators and are 
representative of several different localities. It is evident that 
prostitution is largely a problem of mental disease and defect. 

2. Social. Delayed marriages on the one hand, unhappy 
marriages and broken homes on the other, help many young 
women to drift into prostitution. Most prostitutes have been 
married at one time or another—often prior to entering the pro- 
fession. Most of them come from abnormal homes—undisciplined, 
joyless, without traditions. In many cases the mother has worked 
outside, and therefore maintained no effective supervision over her 
children. 

3. Esthetic. The longing of young women for luxuries which 
they can not afford out of legitimate wages puts a premium on 
their earning “easy money” in this way. Taken in conjunction 
with the materialistic standards that are widely held, with the 
idea that it is of paramount importance to “have a good time,” 
and with the feeble inhibitions and lack of perspective of these 
women, the love of luxury is a potent influence that must be reck- 
oned with in every proposal to deal with prostitution. A vain, 
shallow, indolent, oversexed girl who has made a meagre living by 
hard work in unattractive surroundings finds that by prostitution 
she can seemingly live without working, get abundant sexual 
gratification, wear expensive clothes, dwell in a comfortable hotel 
or apartment house, take her meals at good restaurants, enjoy many 
entertainments, and have the society of men of good standing in the 
community. Is it surprising that the real but sometimes more 
remote disadvantages of a life of prostitution are obscured to her 
weak intellect by these apparently real and more immediate 
attractions? 

Prostitutes are fond of relating that they were forced into their 


PROSTITUTION 87 


calling as an alternative to starvation. In general, the reasons 
they give for becoming prostitutes can never be taken seriously, 
for they represent merely what the speaker thinks she is expected 
to say, or what she thinks will produce a favorable impression. 
In this particular case it is safe to assert that, in the United States 
at least, not one prostitute in a thousand ever became such as an 
alternative to starvation—although many prostitutes, because of 
defective mentality and will power, can perhaps earn little more 
than a bare living by honest work. It is the desire for unearned 
luxury that tempts. 

4, Educational. Defective information concerning sex and 
parenthood, defective training in self-control, defective standards 
of values, help to produce many prostitutes. 

5. Political. The organization of prostitution in large cities 
gives ward bosses a chance to intrench themselves. New prosti- 
tutes must be recruited continually to keep business good. 

6. Economic. Prostitution apparently offers (a) easy money 
for the woman herself and (b) an extremely lucrative revenue 
to the middlemen and exploiters of prostitution. 

The first, second, and fourth of these factors, with appropriate 
changes, help to explain why men become patrons of prostitutes. 
An economic factor also operates (cf. No. 6, above) in that some 
young men think it is cheaper to patronize prostitutes than it is 
to marry. 

The interplay of all these and similar factors, then, tends to 
produce both supply and demand. The factors are of varying 
weight but, as usual where the family is concerned, the biological 
ones are at the bottom. Without defective women and un- 
scrupulous, concupiscent men, “‘the business’ would not last long. 

On the other hand, thebiological factors are far from sufficient 
to account for the great development of organized prostitution, 


1 This is the euphemism by which those engaged in it commonly refer to 
commercialized prostitution. An interesting parallel is “the trade,’ which 
in Great Britain now always means the organized traffic in alcoholic liquors. 
A century or two ago, the same term would have been understood as meaning. 
the industry of exporting slaves from Africa to America. 


88 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


This is to be explained principally by the economic factors. Pros- 
titution—in modern times in the United States, at least—has been 
a highly organized industry, based on graft and corrupt politics 
in large cities, and using all the familiar devices of modern business 
to attract customers and increase profits. ‘This fact points plainly 
to the easiest line of attack, as I have insisted above. 

Among the results of prostitution have been: 

1. Degradation of a large number of men and women in each 
generation. 

2. Wide spread of venereal diseases. 

3. Corruption and graft in politics. 

4, Fostering of all sorts of sexual offenses such as seduction and 
rape, and of sexual perversions. 

5. Broken homes. 

6. Juvenile delinquency. 

All these evils interact. The effect of all of them has been wholly 
bad on the individuals concerned. Some of the effects have been 
beneficial, from the narrowest point of view, to the family and 
society, because the withdrawal from family life, and sterilization 
through venereal diseases or early death, of physical and mental 
inferiors has prevented them from perpetuating their kind, and has 
thus tended to purify the race. But the evil effects of prostitu- 
tion, and the fact that they reached a great many superior people 
as well as inferior ones, make it an undesirable method of eugenics. 
It must be supplanted by more humane, intelligent, and discrimin- 
ating methods of purifying the race. 

Methods of attack (described in many publications of the Ameri- 
can Social Hygiene Association, New York City) have been 
worked out so carefully and applied so successfully in the United 
States during the last 10 or 20 years that victory can now be 
counted on. Briefly the effort is made in the first instance to 
eliminate the organized, commercial features of prostitution; both 
because this is the source of the most harm, and because it is the 
most easily reached. While many individual prostitutes are in the 
business because they enjoy it and prefer it to other ways of making 
a living, the middlemen who exploit it are interested only in the 


PROSTITUTION 89 


money there isinit. Once it is made unprofitable—a feasible task 
for any community—they will quit and turn to something else. 

The evil flowing from the commercial organization of prostitu- 
tion will be understood if it is borne in mind that the harm wrought 
by prostitution is in direct proportion to the number of persons it 
affects. In order that the business may be most profitable, it is 
necessary to have it concentrated in a central location and well 
advertised. Segregation in a Red Light District makes it easily 
accessible toall. ‘Thisis one of the strongest arguments against the 
policy of segregation. Even if abolishing a Red Light District did 
no more than scatter the inmates, it would yet be a benefit, for it 
would make them less easily found and thereby diminish the volume 
of their business. 

But as a fact, any kind of honest law enforcement does much 
more than this. It makes a large proportion of the prostitutes 
and almost all the middlemen—the pimps, panders, procurers, 
madames, and the like—drop out altogether. The few prostitutes 
who remain must keep under cover and find customers only by 
stealth, with the result that they will find perhaps a tenth as many 
as formerly, and the harm they can do is diminished corre- 
spondingly. 

Beyond this, however, the fundamental theory on which segre- 
gation has been practiced is incorrect in every way. It has been 
alleged by its defenders that, prostitution being a necessary evil, 
the wisest course is to recognize it as such and to concentrate it in 
one district where order can be maintained and the evil aspects 
reduced to the minimum. 

Probably no well-informed person in the United States now 
accepts this specious plea. The results of abolition of the Red 
Light Districts (of which some 250 have been closed in the United 
States during the last 25 years) have been so uniformly favorable 
as to leave the segregationists not a leg to stand on. And it is 
also recognized that under any circumstances segregation never 
affected more than a small fraction of the prostitutes in a com- 
munity. Most of them were outside the District and not subject 
to farcical “regulation,” but they profited by the general stimulus 
to prostitution which the District furnishes. 


90 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


The first step, then, in the repression of prostitution is to regard 
it as a crime, and honestly to enforce the law against it, treating 
anyone engaged in it in any form as a criminal, and making no 
distinction of sex. 

There is a widespread European school of thought which regards 
any open advertisement or solicitation as a crime, but holds that 
the act of prostitution itself is a purely personal matter which must 
not be interfered with. In other words, this point of view would 
punish a woman for asking a man to commit an act which, if and 
when committed, is considered to be entirely legal. It would be 
hard to find a better illustration of the extent to which ancient 
prejudices interfere with the application of common sense to law 
enforcement. 

While a law enforcement campaign is the keynote to the im- 
mediate repression of prostitution, it must be accompanied by 
vigorous efforts to deal with all of the factors mentioned above, 
which keep prostitution in existence. Better sex education, wide- 
spread mental hygiene, more recreation, segregation of the feeble- 
minded, protection of the home and family (especially of juveniles), 
more careful mating and more intelligent marriage—every such 
improvement will indirectly reduce prostitution. 


VI. VENEREAL DISEASES 


Of the four or five diseases commonly known as venereal because 
they are most frequently transmitted through sexual intercourse, 
the two important ones are gonorrhea and syphilis. 

Inasmuch as they are usually contracted in ways that the pa- 
tients are ashamed to have known, there are no trustworthy figures 
as to their prevalence. It may be said safely, however, that gonor- 
rhea is the most common of serious infectious diseases, aside from 
measles, and that from one-third to one-half of the men in the 
United States have it at one time or another. Syphilis appears 
to be about one-fifth as common as gonorrhea, and it is thought 
that 10 percent of the American population have it sooner or later. 

Perhaps one in eight of these cases is contracted accidentally, 
from germs which infected persons leave on dishes, tools, bath 
tubs, and in other suitable localities in homes, hotels, restaurants, 
barber shops, soda fountains, and so on. The remaining cases 
represent infection through sexual intercourse. 

When contracted legitimately, the disease is commonly called 
innocent: such are the infections of faithful wives by faithless 
husbands; of children at the time of birth, or before, or after. 
While these form a large part of the total, yet the greater number 
of cases is due to illegitimate intercourse, and even the innocent 
cases go back to such a source originally. So sexual promiscuity is 
the actual means of the dissemination of all venereal diseases. 

Widespread experience in recent years, particularly during the 
war, has demonstrated more clearly than ever that the main rdle 
in the dissemination of these diseases is played by the professional 
prostitute. This had often been denied, and the blame had been 


1Qn the other hand, men are the carriers of the disease from infected to 
non-infected prostitutes, as well as to non-infected wives. Therefore it is idle 
to attempt, as has often been done, to control venereal diseases merely by the 
“sanitation” of prostitutes. 


91 


92 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


placed on the casual offender, largely, it appears, through the not 
disinterested reiteration by prostitutes themselves of the claim that 
the professional did not carry disease. 

The absurdity of this might have been seen in a moment by any- 
one with an elementary knowledge of contagion. In fact it is now 
indisputable that the amount of disease spread by a woman is 
roughly in proportion to the number of opportunities she has. 
As the professional prostitute exposes ten men to infection for 
every one who is exposed by the amateur, the damage the two do is 
measured pretty nearly by the same ratio. The experience of the 
Surgeon General’s office indicates that from 75 to 90 percent of all 
infection of men is due to professional prostitutes. 

This finding argues a high amount of infection among prostitutes 
themselves, and the army’s experience furnished abundant data 
to proveit. Those who have been associated with the fight against 
the venereal diseases have fallen into the habit of assuming, a 
priori, that every woman who is sexually promiscuous is infected; 
and this assumption is not far from right. Examination of thou- 
sands of cases has shown that from 80 to 90 percent of such women 
are infected with one or other of the venereal diseases, while those 
who are not themselves definitely diseased may yet spread disease 
to other persons. 

In short, it is now well established that intercourse outside of 
marriage is almost certain exposure to venereal disease. 

The effects on the family may relate primarily to the individual, 
or to his offspring. 

Economically, the venereal diseases are a national burden, the 
extent of which may be realized when it is borne in mind that on 
any given day probably from 8 to 10 percent of the population suffer 
with these infections. The loss of earning power may burden a 
family severely. A still heavier handicap is imposed when an 
infected person becomes insane. At least 12 percent of all the 
insane in the country owe their condition to nothing else, syphilis 
being the cause of all cases of locomotor ataxia and general paresis. 
Premature death is another result of syphilis, which, with pneu- 
monia, tuberculosis, and heart disease, is one of the four great 


VENEREAL DISEASES 93 


killers in civilization, although it is rare indeed to find a death 
officially credited to it, for good manners require the doctor to 
write something else on the death certificate. 

The effect on reproduction is more serious, in some respects, 
because it is in so many cases the innocent wife and child who 
suffer from the folly of the husband and father. Syphilis is a 
frequent cause of miscarriages and stillbirths. Of the offspring 
of syphilitic parents, some 75 percent are destroyed by the disease 
before birth or within the first year following. Most of the re- 
mainder, though they may live to become adult, never know a really 
well day. Gonorrhea particularly causes barrenness, so that in 
large groups perhaps half of all absolute barrenness, or of ‘“‘one 
child barrenness” where a single child is born and the mother 
never again conceives, is due to the invasion of the reproductive 
organs by the gonococcus. A large proportion of the surgical 
operations performed on the reproductive organs of women are 
the result of infection with gonorrhea, although they are given some 
other name. 

Sickness, miscarriages, barrenness, insanity, and death are then 
among the prices the family pays for the existence of venereal dis- 
eases. These often have a certain racial value, in so far as they 
more often affect people who are inferior to the average of the popu- 
lation in intelligence and self-control. But the eugenic progress 
of the race can be brought about in other ways that do not involve 
such frightful suffering, particularly of innocent wives and little 
children. ‘The venereal diseases must go. 

This proposal involves no real difficulty, from a strictly scientific 
point of view. There are no diseases whose whole history is better 
known than syphilis and gonorrhea. There are few that are 
theoretically easier, not only to control but to exterminate. That 
so little has been done in this direction is due to ignorance and 
prudery. 

To get venereal diseases regarded as any other dangerous infec- 
tious diseases, proper subjects for strict quarantine and control 
until a cure has been effected, requires some vigorous exercise of 
public will-power, but a good deal of progress has already been 


94 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


made in this direction, dating largely from the World War. During 
the conflict the American war department applied energetically 
the measures that common-sense dictated, succeeded in keeping 
the infection of the army down to a previously unheard-of degree 
(much lower than prevails in the civil community), and thereby 
gave a tremendous lesson to the public. 

The “American Program” for combating venereal diseases calls 
for a fourfold attack, comprising law enforcement, medical, edu- 
cational, and recreational measures. It is based on the fact that 
these diseases are spread almost wholly through sexual promiscuity, 
and particularly through commercial prostitution. 

No one of these lines of attack, by itself, is sufficient. But if 
all four of them are pushed intelligently and simultaneously, there 
is now abundant evidence available to show that results are greater 
than anyone could have supposed, when the campaign was started 
15 or 20 years ago. 


VII. INFERTILITY 


The increasing prevalence of childlessness in American families 
is a frequent topic of discussion. Frederick S. Crum found that 
the percentage, in the old native stock, increased from 1.88 in the 
last half of the eighteenth century to 8.10 in the decade 1870-1879; 
while J. A. Hill, analyzing the figures of the 1910 census, showed 
that one in eight of the native-born wives is childless, as compared 
with one in five of the Negresses and one in nineteen of the foreign- 
born. More recent studies have shown that'in some large sections 
of the old white population, at least one wife in five is childless. 

Some of this childlessness is voluntary, but an important part 
of it is not. Many students have supposed that most parents 
want at least one child, at some time or other, and that the number 
of voluntary, wholly sterile marriages is therefore small. Every 
reader will know, in his own circle of acquaintances, a number of 
married couples who desire children and who would be eugenic 
parents, but who are not. It has often been guessed that some- 
thing like 10 percent of all modern, civilized marriages are actually 
infertile. ‘This guess is probably not far from the truth. 

Hundreds of general causes of this infertility have been suggested, 
from eating too much meat (F. Houssay) to imperfect ventilation 
of houses (L. Hill), and from the nervous strain of city life, through 
the spread of twin beds, to the wearing of corsets. All such general 
causes may play a part, but little progress in prevention is to be 
expected from blanket diagnoses. Detailed analysis is necessary 
to untangle the innumerable and involved factors. While any 
extensive consideration of the biological aspects would be beyond 
the scope of this book, it is necessary to outline at least a few of the 
principal lines of investigation, because nothing can prevent the 
normal functioning of a family more completely than sterility. 

Obviously, the childlessness of a family may be the fault either 
of the man or of the woman. While it is customary unthinkingly 

95 


96 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


to blame the wife, the responsibility belongs quite as often to her 
husband. ‘The man should be examined first, because examination 
is much easier in the male sex. Sterility existing from birth is 
relatively rare in either sex. In most cases the condition is due to 
faulty development or unhygienic living. 

In men the most frequent single cause of sterility is chronic 
gonorrhea. Indeed, some students have thought that this is as 
frequent as all other causes put together. It is declining slowly in 
importance in the United States, however, as the seriousness of 
infection with gonorrhea comes to be more widely and fully under- 
stood. The common history has been that a man contracts 
gonorrhea in his youth from some prostitute, treats it with patent 
medicines, or has it treated by some quack doctor, and, thinking 
that he has eradicated the germs, actually succeeds merely in 
driving them more deeply into the reproductive organs, whence 
they can never be disloged. 

Among other diseases, mumps is a well-known danger in adoles- 
cence, when it sometimes attacks the testicles. Malaria, syphilis, 
tuberculosis, and a number of other infections are in rare instances 
followed by sterility, the exact nature of which is often obscure. 

Alcohol has often been accused of causing sterility in men, but 
the evidence is contradictory. Lead poisoning is a better attested 
danger: those exposed to it in their work should bear this in mind. 
Among modern occupational diseases, the disability that follows 
exposure to the X-ray is racially one of the most serious. ‘Tempor- 
ary or permanent sterility is easily acquired in this way. Worse 
still, the germ-plasm may be so altered as to result in the birth of 
defective children. Matrimonially, any one who has had much 
to do with X-rays is what an insurance agent would call a bad risk. 

In women the mechanism of reproduction is more complicated 
than in men, and the possible causes of barrenness are therefore 
more numerous. Here again gonorrhea plays an important rdle, 
the germs invading the tubes and ovaries and making conception 
impossible. In general, all the diseases and poisons mentioned as 
affecting men may also affect women. Misplacements of the 
reproductive organs and alterations in their normal functioning, 


INFERTILITY 97 


due to ill health, are often responsible. The internal glands are 
blamed in a somewhat vague way for a large part of women’s 
sterility. Thyroid diseases and diabetes are both fairly frequent 
causes of barrenness. Recent students have laid emphasis on in- 
fantilism—a condition in which the reproductive organs have not 
developed normally but have remained in a more or less infantile 
state. This arrested development is associated with extreme fat- 
ness, and also with the Baby Doll type of female beauty. 

Experiments in breeding smaller animals have brought to light 
a cause of infertility which may also play an important part in 
man. It has been found that certain inherited factors are lethal— 
that is, in certain combinations they produce, for an unknown 
reason, an embryo that can not develop but dies in the womb at an 
early age. The stock example is that of yellow mice. In matings 
of these with each other, one-fourth of the expected offspring fail 
to develop more than a few days. These are the ones which 
received a pure yellow inheritance from both parents (technically, 
those homozygous for this factor). It happens that a double dose 
of yellowness is absolutely fatal, although a single dose from the 
ancestry produces a perfectly normal yellow animal. 

Many other cases of the same sort have been found, and it is 
easy to push the explanation to cover a wide range of happenings. 
It is probable, as C. B. Davenport and others have urged, that 
there are certain marriages in which no children are produced, 
simply because each parent carries inherited factors which, united 
with those of the other, are lethal in effect. In such a case both 
parents might be fertile if married to other people. 

It is difficult to prove such an explanation in any given case in 
man, because it is difficult to exclude all other plausible explana- 
tions. The marriage of Napoleon Bonaparte and Josephine Beau- 
harnais is cited as an illustration. The latter was a widow who 
had had children by her first husband, and was therefore not 
naturally barren. She had no children by Napoleon. He was 
not sterile, however, for he had children by other women, il- 
legitimately, and also by his second wife, Maria Luisa of Austria. 
What more natural than to suppose that Napoleon and Josephine 
were genetically incompatible? 


98 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


If Josephine had had children by some other man, after her 
divorce from Napoleon, the case would be stronger. But as this 
necessary part of the proof is lacking, nothing is proved. She 
may have become barren after the birth of her children, and before 
she married Napoleon. She was no more faithful to the marriage 
vow than he was, and may have contracted gonorrhea. Any one 
of a score of other possible explanations may apply. 

The same difficulty is met in all human cases. The theory of 
sterility due to genetic incompatibility is well founded, but its 
detailed application to man is now impossible. 

Attention has been called recently to a vitamin, named “‘fat- 
soluble E,” in the absence of which from the dietary, both sexes 
become sterile. But since only an infinitesimal amount of it is 
needed, and since it is abundant in some common foods such as the 
wheat germ, green leaves (lettuce, etc.) and vegetable oils, it does 
not appear likely at first sight that it plays an important part in 
human sterility. Nevertheless, it seems to be established that any 
marked dietetic or hygienic irregularity that affects the whole body 
may lower the level of fertility. 

Finally, some investigators are convinced that the most frequent 
cause of sterility in woman arises from her failure (due to ignorance 
of the art of love on the part of both herself and her husband) to 
find satisfaction in her love-life. 

The results of infertility are personally unfortunate in all cases 
where the individuals want children. Racially they may be either 
good or bad, depending on whether or not the quality of the persons 
affected is such as society wants to see perpetuated. 

Gonorrhea, which is possibly the greatest single cause of infer- 
tility in modern civilization, attacks those who are probably, on 
the average, eugenically inferior. Their contribution of children 
can often be spared. But it is by no means confined to such 
classes, and it is an evil in so many other ways that a better eugenic 
substitute can be found for it. 

The effects of gonorrhea have probably been particularly sig- 
nificant in the Negro race in the United States. Infection is wide- 
spread here. Negroes drafted into the army in 1917-1918 were 


INFERTILITY 99 


found to show seven times as much infection as the whites. The 
natural fecundity of the Negro is such that except for such checks 
as this they would have outbred the whites rapidly and eventually 
made of America another Dark Continent. Asitis, they have been 
losing ground steadily since the Civil War, in comparison with the 
whites. The campaign against venereal diseases during the last 
decade has necessarily tended to diminish this cause of infertility 
among the Negroes, and hence to make them increase in numbers 
more rapidly. On the other hand, it happens that a widespread 
emigration of Negroes from southern farms to northern cities has 
occurred at the same time. As the Negro is less fecund under the 
latter conditions, perhaps both because of the colder climate and 
the urban life, the birth-rate of the race has been diminished more 
than enough to counteract any gain which accrued to it through 
the reduction in venereal diseases. 

In superior homes infertility is an evil from every point of view, 
and one deserving of more attention than it has had from those 
interested in the family. It has been too easy in recent years to 
assume that when such people had no children, it was their own 
choice, and to ignore the many cases in which infertility of un- 
discoverable origin left the partners broken-hearted. 

The remedies for infertility are so varied that they can not be 
summed up easily. Most of them may be inferred readily from the 
nature of the causes outlined above. The extermination of gonor- 
rhea will eliminate the greatest single cause of infertility, while 
hygiene, physical education, and a better understanding of marriage 
will deal with many of the others. 

One remedy which young men and women can apply to some 
extent is to marry into fecund families. Francis Galton long ago 
pointed out that marriage with an only child was likely to result 
in the extermination of the family; for the fact that the child had 
no brothers or sisters was some presumptive evidence that it came 
from a stock whose natural fertility was below par. Marriage into 
healthy families where there are numerous children is one of the 
best possible safeguards of continued fertility. 


VIII. IELEGITIMACY 


Births outside of wedlock are decreasing steadily in almost all 
civilized countries. Among white births in the United States, 
something like one in every 60 is illegitimate, the proportion being 
higher in cities and lower in the country, and varying, moreover, 
to a marked degree in different states. 

Aside from the faulty vital statistics of many American states, 
the proportion of foreign-born and of Negro population, especially 
the latter, influences the figures. Data on Negro illegitimacy are 
so fragmentary that little definite information can be derived from 
them; moreover, the social significance of illegitimacy among 
Negroes is not exactly the same as among whites. I have therefore 
left Negro illegitimacy out of consideration in this section. So far 
as one can guess from the figures to be had, there may be some 
35,000 illegitimate Negro births in the United States each year. 
It would probably not be far wrong to say that there are about as 
many illegitimate Negro as illegitimate white births in a year, 
although there are only one-tenth as many Negroes as whites in 
the population. This excess of Negro births doubtless reflects 
such facts as the smaller amount of criminal abortion in that race, 
as well as differences in marriage customs. 

The sequel of these illegitimate births, as described by social 
workers, and with some approach to exactness in all too many cases, 
is that the father eitheris not disclosed or, if known, is mildly repro- 
bated by his associates, and occasionally forced by the mother’s 
relatives or the law, to make a contribution toward the maintenance 
of his child. This is almost never more than $200 a year, for courts 
are as niggardly in mulcting a man convicted of “bastardy” as they 
are liberal in mulcting a man convicted of “breach of promise.” 

On the other hand, the woman in the case is hounded and ostra- 
cised, while the child is often given away, a few days after birth, 
to some one who conveniently lets it die. If it lives, and can not 

100 


ILLEGITIMACY 101 


conceal the secret of its birth, it carries the contempt of its fellow- 
men through life. It is not strange that such a situation has 
aroused the reformatory zeal of many sincere and well-meaning 
persons. And it is not strange, bearing in mind American tenden- 
cies in social reform, that these persons have almost uniformly 
attempted to improve the situation by more laws. The possible 
effects of such laws in many directions have been almost wholly 
ignored. Whatever else they may be, they are certainly a long 
step in the direction of legalized polygamy. The North Dakota 
law of 1919, one of the most advanced—or retrogressive, according 
to the point of view—of American statutes on this subject, reads: 

“Every child is hereby declared to be the legitimate child of its 
natural parents, and as such is entitled to support and education, 
to the same extent as if it had been born in lawful wedlock. It 
shall inherit from its natural parents and from their kindred heir 
lineal and collateral.” 

The Arizona law of 1921 is similar in terms. Here are laws, 
expressing more or less accurately the ideal toward which many 
interested people are looking, that certainly have broad implica- 
tions and, as will be pointed out in more detail later, would tend 
to introduce some fundamental changes in the American concep- 
tion of family life. It is of the highest importance to find out what 
kind of people make up the small group (say 35,000 mothers and an 
equal number of babies each year) for whom the traditional ideas 
about marriage are legally to be set aside. 

In the first place, the mothers are mostly young. From one- 
ninth to one-fifth of them, in various groups studied, are little 
more than children, i.e., under 18 years of age. About the same 
proportion of the fathers is under the legal age of majority (K. F. 
Lenroot). The following table shows the number of illegitimate 
births (including Negro but excluding stillbirths) per 1000 total 
births, according to age of mother, in the registration area, 1920 
(excluding California and Massachusetts): 


RUN OM RV CAT Sey cats b tteid oie ehec tie hd ist ye iare ek acbholehe oxepeblas 668 ..6 
MORE QICET OR oi, Wee ashe 8 esl cies ATE sie Wa ioe ak eke ehe Males 11322 
DUR ELARVCATS MERLOT oan sy Won chile oalcur Phas gies Avicdss oe Sythe, 2587 


aS ANT ALC he eo eae eric ices tiaceey Uc rage wich. 50 Son0 


102 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


In the second place, the mothers are mostly from economically 
inferior strata of the population. A study by Emma O. Lundberg 
and Katharine F. Lenroot, of unmarried mothers in Boston, 1914, 
revealed the status of 691 whose occupations were reported: 


Not. gainfully employed sid i vin: eat ae sclnietee A em artes niete 98 
Clerks;and kindred: workers 1/2). 50, tan upc cae ee eee perenne 68 
Seri-sitilled) WOrKETS / 2s Tiecec sts foe eekie ew eae alrite Silo eR ee 192 
BOrvaTts sis wale We cele oe slendials ails tale Serie et Cin ne theta mero! 326 
A Tigtivers es pr ture vies a etacaove avecala erate eneeneel ot rete GMMROne Scheie anne 7 

691 


Miss Lenroot summarizes other studies by saying, ‘Available 
information indicates that the great majority of the mothers are 
gainfully employed prior to the child’s birth, chiefly in domestic 
service or as semi-skilled factory workers. Almost half the fathers 
are in the ranks of semi-skilled workers, or clerks and kindred work- 
ers.”” In other words, the economic status of the father averages 
a little higher than that of the mother. Sometimes, indeed, he is a 
gentleman, in the worst sense of the word. 

In the third place, the mothers are, to a large extent, of inferior 
mentality. Of 468 in the Boston investigation, as to whose mental 
condition something was known, 100 were reported as feeble- 
minded or subnormal, and half a dozen as insane. It can hardly 
be doubted that many of the 382 described as “normal, so far as 
known” were at least border-line cases. “These,” says Miss 
Lenroot, ‘‘are understatements. Considering together the mental 
condition of parents and maternal grandparents, only fragmentary 
evidence being available, it was found that of 2178 children born 
out of wedlock who were under care of social agencies, at least 19 
percent had a heritage in which there was known or probable 
insanity, feeblemindedness, or other subnormal or abnormal mental 
condition.” Moreover, the feebleminded women are more likely 
to have had several illegitimate children, than are the more normal 
ones. I have found no definite information about the mentality 
of the fathers, but their economic status, and the fact that a feeble- 
minded male is not sexually attractive to most women, make it 


ILLEGITIMACY 103 


probable that the level of intelligence of the fathers averages a 
little higher than that of the mothers. 

In the fourth place, the mothers are of previous bad character, 
without taking into account the fact of illegitimate maternity, 
which to some persons would be ipso facto evidence. The same 
holds true of the fathers. Miss Lenroot continues: 

“Repeated infractions of the moral code, serious alcoholism, or 
other anti-social characteristics were reported in the histories of 42 
percent of the mothers of children born out of wedlock in one year, 
for whom social information was available, while the mothers of 54 
percent of the children under care of social agencies, and of the 
same percent of children under care of the state, were so reported. 
Considering together the character of mother, father, and maternal 
grandparents for the group of 2178 children under care of social 
agencies, only 38 percent of the children had parents and grand- 
parents who were of good character, so far as known.” 

The typical illegitimate child, then, may be said to be the off- 
spring of a young mother of inferior status mentally, morally, and 
economically; and of a father who is probably a little superior to 
the mother in age, mentality, and economic status, if not in morals. 

The lack of records concerning illegitimate children, except 
during the first few months of life, makes it impossible to study the 
character of the offspring of such unions in the way that would be 
desirable. ‘The frequency of mental defect and congenital syphilis 
in the population of orphanages, many of whose inmates are of 
illegitimate birth, doubtless reflects something of the facts; but the 
principal induction statistically established is the high infant 
mortality which, in America as in most parts of the world, is two or 
three times the average. Many erroneous conclusions have been 
drawn from this fact. One would expect the mortality of illegiti- 
mate children to be above the average, because they do not form an 
average group, but one selected for abundance of natural handicaps, 


1Undoubtedly the public records are defective, in that the illegitimate 
mothers of the highest mental and economic status are more likely to succeed 
in keeping their condition from becoming a matter of record. I have no basis 
for estimating the amount of this influence. 


104. THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


in addition to the social difficulties of the mother. While some 
of the high mortality is doubtless due to faulty feeding, consequent 
on the early separation of mother and child, a much larger part 
must be due to defective heredity, congenital syphilis, and similar 
handicaps. It is significant that, excluding diseases directly due 
to nutrition, the Boston investigation showed the mortality for the 
ordinary diseases of infancy (closely associated with heredity) to be 
two or three times the average. Before using the infant mortality 
rate to work up any more sympathy, the reformers might well 
publish a comparison with the rate in a really comparable group of 
legitimate children. 

All of these facts about the inferior heredity of illegitimate 
children as a class are well known, but it has seemed necessary to 
rehearse them here as a foundation for the very obvious conclusions 
to which I wish to call attention, namely, that the high infant 
mortality of these children is, from the narrowest point of view, 
eugenic, and tends to purify the racial germ plasm of elements 
which it is much better off without. The ostracism of illegitimate 
mothers and the callous indifference often manifested toward the 
fate of their children are social attitudes which have certainly not 
been built up by any conscious eugenic effort on the part of the 
race; but their effects are eugenic in a crude, harsh, and drastic 
way. 

If, then, it is desired to modify the present status of illegitimacy 
in such a way as to save the lives of a larger proportion of these 
children, it is important that this action, which is eugenically a 
step backward, be accompanied by some definite eugenic measure 
to counterbalance it. Otherwise this humanitarian reform, like 
many others, will leave the race really worse off than before, in 
regard to the perpetuation of defective strains of germ plasm. 
This is the direct result; the indirect results on the public attitude 
toward the home and family may be much more important, though 
not recognized so easily. 

In view of the momentous results that may follow the legislative 
changes requested on behalf of this small and anti-social part of the 
population, it would seem natural that these changes be scrutinized 


ILLEGITIMACY 105 


very carefully from a eugenic point of view. But this point of view 
is precisely the one that is almost always ignored, in any discussion 
of the subject. I propose to comment very briefly on a few of the 
salient points in the proposed changes, and for convenience I will 
take them up under seven heads as classified by the Children’s 
Bureau (1921): 

1. Birth registration. It is agreed that full registration of il- 
legitimate and all other births is desirable on every account. The 
reformers, however, commonly make much of the supposed impor- 
tance of secrecy. “Together with efforts to secure complete and 
accurate birth registration must go concern that no record shall 
be so used that the child’s future happiness may be in any way 
endangered.” ‘To this end it is proposed that the details of birth 
certificates be confidential, to be consulted only upon court order, 
or by some similar procedure. 

Surely, this is going too far, in promoting supposed private in- 
terests at the expense of public welfare. For the improvement of 
sexual selection, it is requisite that details of birth be much more 
widely known than at present. Birth certificates, and similar 
information, should be freely accessible to the public for this reason. 
This is of particular importance in the case of illegitimacy, because 
of the frequent germinal inferiority, for reasons noted above, of 
such individuals. Certainly from this point of view, few facts 
could be of more concern to a young person contemplating mar- 
riage, than the fact of the prospective partner’s illegitimacy. Yet 
to safeguard the supposed happiness of one individual, it is proposed 
to penalize the happiness of unnumbered future generations, not 
to mention the interests of the state in cutting off inferior lines of 
descent. Could any proposal be more shortsighted? 

The reason for secrecy is, of course, to prevent the innocent child 
from bearing a stigma. But, after all, is there any reason why 
the innocent child should not bear a stigma? It is inescapably 
stigmatized by birth, through inheritance from anti-social, probably 
mentally defective, and otherwise abnormal parents. The stigma 
will not be pleasant for the child to bear, any more than would any 
other infirmity; but the harm done to society by temporarily 


106 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


concealing this stigma—which, however, can not be so far con- 
cealed that it will not appear in the individual’s children—is vastly 
greater. 

In this connection a popular line of reform is the euphemistic. 
The name “‘bastard”’ is subject to justifiable protest, because of its 
connotations. ‘‘Illegitimate’’ is rejected because it is argued that 
the parentage, not the child, is illegitimate. “Children born out of 
wedlock,” a circumlocution popularized by the Children’s Bureau, 
and “children whose parents have not married each other” 
(a Norwegian phrase) are objected to as cumbersome and not lend- 
ing themselves to adjectival use. ‘‘Ex-nuptual,” the expression 
used by some writers, is unsatisfactory because the prefix is com- 
monly used in English with an entirely different meaning (cf. ex- 
president, ex-convict, etc.). Many think that the individual in 
question should be termed a “natural child,” as if, by implication, 
there is something unnatural about a birth inside wedlock. But 
the climax is attained by the mealy-mouthed who refer to the 
bastard as a “love child,” thereby recording their view that the 
product of a furtive mating between some weakly-inhibited repro- 
bate and a feebleminded servant girl is typically an emblem of love, 
by contrast with the child born in monogamy. If anew name is to 
be given to the illegitimate child, surely it must be something very 
different in implication from these two! 

2. The problem of establishing paternity. In order that the 
lines of descent in the race may be known, the establishment of 
filiation, though sometimes difficult, is of fundamental importance. 
If the mother or someone representing her does not take steps to 
that end, the state should do so. The notorious French law, 
adopted in the time of Napoleon, stood for a century as the symbol 
of a non-biological attitude: “The investigation of paternity is 
forbidden.” It was amended in 1912. 

3. Responsibility of the father. The extent to which the father 
should be liable for the support of his illegitimate offspring is a 
critical problem in this investigation, and one to which reformers 
have devoted much of their attention, even though for the most 
part “zeal outruns discretion.” A common form of panacea 


ILLEGITIMACY 107 


among legislators has been the adoption of the miraculous formula 
that an illegitimate child is “the lawful child of the father.” But 
as Ernst Freund points out, this light-hearted action is taken 
without any clear conception of what it involves, in regard to 
custody, right of inheritance, and name. In practice, such a 
provision is unworkable, as I believe the ill-advised North Dakota 
law of 1919 has shown. 

' If the father is to be responsible for the support of the child, 
he must in justice have some control over that child, a fact which 
reformers often dislike to face, because it is not compatible with 
their vindictive attitude toward the father and their sentimental 
attitude toward the mother. A legal father, for instance, is 
responsible for all the debts of his children. What would happen 
if this rule were applied to an illegitimate child not subject to 
paternal control? 

Again, what is to be done about paternal responsibility in the 
case of a promiscuous woman? In such cases it is often impossible 
to establish paternity by the methods now in vogue, although, 
as Roswell H. Johnson pointed out (1919), application of the 
technique of anthropology and genetics would solve most problems. 
The Norwegian law is logically consistent in making all culpable 
males responsible, thus giving the child a sort of collective or group 
father. But such an easy solution does not advance the eugenic 
interests of the state. 

4, Inheritance rights; name. From a eugenic point of view, 
inheritance of the parental property is of great importance, because 
of the influence of relative wealth in encouraging or discouraging 
reproduction on the part of the heirs. I believe it is indicated 
clearly, for reasons outlined above, that on the average, a man’s 
illegitimate children will be of less eugenic value than his legitimate 
children. If so, it is not desirable that the illegitimate should 
inherit equally, and the North Dakota law, which provides for 
equal shares, is dysgenic. 

But in any case, a father in the United States is not legally 
compelled to bequeath property to his children, as he is in some 
foreign countries: he can cut off any or all of his legitimate children 


108 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


without a cent. He can not be compelled to bequeath part of his 
fortune to an illegitimate child, without a change in the funda- 
mental principles of American law; and if the right of inheritance 
is dependent on the father’s inclination, as it is in fact, then the 
wording of the North Dakota law is foolish, for the illegitimate child 
has a “right” to inherit, anyhow, just as a stranger has, provided 
the testator wishes to name him in his will. 

As to the paternal name, one type of thoroughgoing reformer 
would make it compulsory on the child to take his father’s name; 
most would make it optional. In some ways the interests of 
eugenics would be better served if every child, by taking his 
father’s name, thereby advertised his genealogy; but this would 
involve many practical difficulties, and the point is unimportant, 
since a change of name, legally or otherwise, is easy enough, and 
the father might often buy off his illegitimate offspring in this 
respect. 

While the interests of the illegitimate child must be given proper 
consideration, the interests of a legitimate family may often require 
at least equal consideration. The married mother who bears an 
illegitimate child is a case in point; the married father may be 
another, if the admission of his illegitimate offspring would break 
up a desirable home. Such examples offer a strong argument for 
the principle that cases of illegitimacy should be dealt with by 
some agency that can use its discretion, even though such an agency 
might need the wisdom of Solomon. 

5. Care by mother. The question under this head is whether 
the mother should be obliged to keep her child, at least during the 
nursing period, or whether, as at present, she may give it away 
immediately and never hear of it again. Probably this question 
can be settled in accord with the facts of each individual case. 

6. Surrender of child. The question here is, “should the parents 
of a child born out of wedlock be permitted to surrender the child 
for adoption, or to any agency or person outside their own family, 
without the consent of a court of competent jurisdiction or of an 
authorized state agency?’’ Social workers generally answer, No. 

7. State supervision. This involves the question whether the 


STACI OR Od co RIE! CT? 


ILLEGITIMACY 109 


state should assume protection and supervision of all children born 
out of wedlock, by virtue of the fact of such birth, or whether it 
should intervene only in cases which are neglected or dependent, 
or in danger of becoming so. Social workers are divided in their 
views on this point, which involves many considerations that can 
not be dismissed offhand, or even judged without experience of 
their practical import. Nevertheless, I venture to suggest that 
here, as in many other phases of the whole problem, circumstances 
should govern; and that it is preferable to deal with individual 
cases before a domestic relations court, or some other agency that 
has authority to use its own discretion, rather than to attempt by 
mass legislation to spread on the statute-books iron-clad rules 
that may be more far-reaching than their framers expect. 

Everyone must sympathize with the plight of the child born 
out of wedlock, and be anxious to see him accorded every mitiga- 
tion of his lot that is compatible with the welfare of the whole race: 
but beyond this a eugenist can not go. The mores of monogamy 
have been built up, as the product of a sort of natural selection, 
throughout the evolution of man; they are not to be tampered 
with except after much more careful study than seems to have been 
given to the subject by most of those who argue that “every child 
has a right to have two parents.”’ Moreover, even if the constitu- 
tion should be amended to declare that there is no stigma attached 
to illegitimacy, society would continue to stigmatize the illegitimate 
so long as people feel that there is cause for pride in descent from 
intelligent, self-controlled, socially-minded ancestors, and cause 
for humiliation in descent from feebleminded, weakly-inhibited, 
anti-social ancestors. 

The trouble is that the reformers who want to give every child 
two parents are guided not by biology, which has already given 
every child two parents, but by sentiment. Their principal desire 
is not to further the progressive evolution of the race, but to make 
things easier for the unmarried mother and to secure better nurture 
for her child. Both of these ambitions are commendable within 
limits, but not beyond. 

As far as the mother is concerned, it can not be held that the 


110 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


father is the invariable sinner, and the woman in the case merely a 
weak and helpless victim of his perfidy. “It has never struck me,” 
Thomas Hardy remarks, “that the spider is invariably male and 
the fly invariably female.’”? Reformers would remove the stigma 
from her by making her motherhood just as sacred and honorable 
as any other kind of motherhood. Apart from the fact that such 
an end can not be achieved, in the face of the present mores, it may 
well be asked why all motherhood should be placed on the same 
basis. There is a big distinction between thoughtfulness and a 
sense of responsibility, and the kind of motherhood that produces 
children out of levity, recklessness, and the inability to escape the 
consequences. I see no reason.why the former type should not be 
honored and the latter stigmatized. 

In order to make the two kinds of motherhood more indis- 
tinguishable, there is a short cut to human morality much in vogue 
in some quarters, which consists in getting hold of the man in the 
case and forcing him to marry the woman, provided, of course, 
he is not already married to some other woman. Apart from the 
fact that in many cases this produces loveless marriages, which turn 
out badly (as I believe experienced social workers all testify), 
thereby leading to further marital unfaithfulness and increased 
disintegration of the monogamous ideal, it must be noted that this 
kind of marriage does not provide for good sexual selection. From 
a eugenic point of view, it is therefore not to be encouraged. 

In addition to mitigating the lot of the unmarried mother, the 
other object of the reformers is to wipe out the unmerited sufferings 
of illegitimate children by obliterating the distinction between 
legitimacy and illegitimacy. ‘This, too, is easier said than done, 
as I have already pointed out: the illegitimate child is in most 
cases ineradicably marked at birth, by his inheritance. Is not 
I’. W. Foerster right when he remarks that “Such an artificial level- 
ing is absolutely impossible: the actual difference between the con- 
crete and physically inevitable effect which results from the two 
kinds of motherhood is so fundamental that it can not be obliterated 
by any abstract leveling’’? 

One can not even accept the primary assumption that it is desir- 


ILLEGITIMACY 111 


able that every child should have two parents. Does it not depend 
on what kind of parents they are? Some children would be better 
off without any parents, than with those they have. In many 
cases the present system (if properly administered) of créches and 
adoption for illegitimate children may be the best, provided their 
antecedents are not concealed in such a way that they will burst 
forth to cause agony later in life at marriage. 

It appears, then, from the eugenic point of view, and with refer- 
ence to conditions in the United States at the present time, that 
all proposed reforms which have for their object the endeavor to 
make illegitimate maternity pleasanter and more respectable, and 
to give illegitimate children a better start in life, must be looked 
upon with suspicion, if not with actual disfavor. The results can 
hardly be other than, directly, to increase the number of undesirable 
citizens in the community, and directly, to break down the ideal 
of monogamous family life, which would result eventually in the 
production of a still further increased number of inferior children 
and the provision of still worse nurture for them, through the dis- 
integration of the monogamous partnership ideal. At present, 
the only real protection for motherhood is offered by a powerful 
and authoritative institution such as monogamy, which binds 
and educates the individual father to the protection of the in- 
dividual mother and their common children. 

A peculiar confusion is evident in the minds of many who deal 
with this problem. ‘Thus Professor Freund declares: ““The view 
that the interest of the child is the paramount interest to which 
all other considerations should yield is not only attractive, but 
socially sound. ‘The view, on the other hand, that in the interest 
of the institution of marriage the fruit of illicit relations must be 
penalized and made odious is intrinsically abhorrent.” 

Now it must be evident to any student of history that marriage 
is a development, not for the benefit and protection of man, so 
much as for the benefit and protection of woman and child. Any- 
thing, therefore, that safeguards the home is for the interest of 
mother and infant; while measures, such as many of the proposed 
reforms in the illegitimacy laws, which, while professing to work 


112 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


for the welfare of mother and child, actually tend to break down 
the ideal of the home, are in the long run certain to injure mother 
and child more than anything else. 

It seems to me, therefore, that the illegitimacy problem is being 
attacked from the wrong side. ‘The number of children born out 
of wedlock in the United States is so small, in relation to the 
legitimates, and their eugenic quality is, on the average, so low, 
that mass legislation intended to benefit them, but actually much 
more than counterbalancing any good it may do them, by the 
harm done to the normal and eugenic part of society, is unwise. 

The difficulties and injustices arising in actual cases must of 
course be met as well as is humanly possible; but can not these 
problems be left largely to the discretion of a domestic relations 
court, with a minimum of red tape, mandate, hard and fast law, 
and compulsory judicial procedure? ‘Then, attention can be 
Centered on illegitimacy in a broader way with a view, if not to 
wiping it out, at least to reducing it to small proportions. Effective 
measures for doing this are numerous and no longer experimental. 
They include such familiar procedures as: 

Better education of young people, especially in physiology, 
ethics, and mental hygiene. 

More facilities for recreation. 

Proper care or segregation of the feebleminded, particularly 
women of child-bearing age. 

Suppression of prostitution. 

Supervision of feebly-inhibited men and women. 

Finally, and most important of all, every eugenic measure that ~ 
will tend to raise the level of the race and reduce the number of 
feebly-inhibited and feebleminded persons born, thereby reducing 
the number of potential illegitimate parents. 


Ix. ABORTION 


Abortion! is one of the most important and least-studied of the 
hindrances to normal family life. In many savage societies it has 
been a recognized means of limiting the increase of population, 
and in classical antiquity it was openly tolerated at times. Roman 
legislators laid down the unscientific principle that the fetus is 
pars viscerum mulieris—a part of the woman’s intestines; wherefore 
she has as much right to have it removed as to have her appendix 
cut out. Christian doctrine declared the sinfulness of abortion 
and led to its being regarded as a crime, so that in almost every 
civilized country it is now a violation of the law, and repugnant to 
official morals, at least, to have any part in procuring an abortion. 

The general relaxation of authority, and the general trend 
toward materialism and individualism, have resulted, in all civil- 
ized countries, in wide and apparently increasing practice of abor- 
tion. Obviously, no accurate figures of its frequency can be ob- 
tained. In the United States the estimate most frequently quoted 
is that of W. J. Robinson, who put the number at 1,000,000 annu- 
ally. Other guesses have ranged from 50,000 to 3,000,000, but 
most conservative social workers feel that the number can not be 
less than 250,000 a year (A. W. Meyer). For comparison it may be 
recalled that there are something less than 2,500,000 births in the 
United States each year. The number of abortions in Germany 
has been estimated at from 300,000 to 500,000 a year; in Paris, 
according to L. Tissier and others, the number of births and of 
abortions is approximately equal. All of the above figures, it must 
be insisted, are mere guesses, even though the best guesses avail- 


1 The word is here used to apply only to abortions that are induced arti- 
ficially. Spontaneous abortions occurring before about the seventh month are 
usually called miscarriages; those at a later period stillbirths. This is popular 
usage: physicians often refer to any early miscarriage as an abortion, without 
implying anything criminal. 


113 


114 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


able. Without laying particular weight on any of them, one may 
say with some confidence that the number of abortions on both 
sides of the Atlantic is large and that it is probably increasing. 

There is reason to believe that most of the abortions are per- 
formed by licensed physicians, although midwives and nurses also 
contribute. E. B. Reuter mentions court records purporting to 
show that there are at least 2,000 persons in New York City who 
make this their profession, while a writer in Hygeia (November, 
1924) states that the coroner’s office of Chicago has a list of over 
400 physicians and midwives known to be doing criminal abor- 
tions. Perhaps one case in a thousand is prosecuted, but even 
then a conviction is seldom obtained. The victim has every reason 
for not wanting to testify, and if she does take the stand, she is 
unable to give an exact account of what happened. Moreover, it 
is merely her word against that of the abortionist, since there are 
usually no other witnesses available; and physicians dislike to 
testify for a number of reasons, one of which is that the defense 
attorneys often make them uncomfortable. 

To the number of abortions induced by specialists must be added 
those (an unknown but not a small proportion of the total) induced 
by the women themselves. ‘These are usually by means of drugs, 
of which popular superstition supposes several to be effective. In 
addition, thinly-disguised advertisements offering ‘female pills” 
or powders “‘to restore suppressed menstruation” are to be seen on 
all sides. 

Inasmuch as the signs of pregnancy are not infallible during the 
earlier months, and suppression of menstruation, which is the 
evidence usually accepted by women, may be due to numerous 
other causes, many women who are not pregnant become the 
victims of abortionists. J. R. Spinner, who says there are thou- 
sands of such cases of ‘imaginary abortion” in Germany each 
year, has recorded 100 of which the details were known. In this 
series, 45 percent of the operations resulted in the death of the 
woman. 

Both unmarried and married women contribute to the number 
of abortions, but physicians seem to be generally agreed that most 


ABORTION 115 


are among married women. In the group of 826 married college 
graduate women who replied (anonymously) to the questionnaire 
of Katherine Bement Davis, 92 admitted having had a total of 144 
abortions (some of them, however, by order of a physician to save 
their lives). The admissions were as follows: 


NUMBER OF WOMEN ADMITTING ABORTIONS NUMBER OF ABORTIONS 
63 1 
19 2 
5 3 
2 4 
1 5 
1 7 
1 8 


The principal effects are: on the woman, sometimes death, often 
protracted illness and ensuing barrenness (not to mention expense), 
inflammations, infections, persistent bleeding, repeated spon- 
taneous abortions thereafter; and perversion of the feelings nor- 
mally associated with motherhood and child love; on society, the 
loss of an equivalent number of children. If, as is probable, people 
who practice abortion average inherently inferior to the rest of the 
population in some important respects, the loss of their offspring 
is not an unmixed evil. But the same gain can be got better in 
other ways. 

More than perhaps any other problem concerning the family, 
abortion is viewed through a fog of emotion. On the one hand 
are those to whom the very thought is abhorrent, to whom abortion 
is merely murder, and who regard even a serious discussion of its 
causes and consequences as wicked. On the other hand are those 
who, having attempted to emancipate themselves from all author- 
ity, regard abortion as a natural form of birth control. They 
assume as a matter of course that a woman must be absolute mis- 
tress of her own body, and consider that if she desires to procure 
an abortion, no one else has a right to say anything about it. 
These seem to think that having an abortion performed is com- 
parable, both physically and ethically, to having a tooth pulled. 


116 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


The second view seems to have been gaining ground, particularly 
in Europe, where the subject has been discussed more openly than 
in the United States. As long ago as 1905, a Woman’s Congress 
in Germany adopted a resolution demanding that abortion be 
punishable only when effected by another person against the 
wish of the pregnant woman herself; and the Social Democratic 
Party in that country—the largest political group—has included 
in its platform the demand that the laws against abortion be much 
modified, if not wholly abrogated. 

As this point of view has been spreading steadily in America, 
it is of the highest importance that everyone interested in the con- 
servation of the family examine it and decide for himself how far 
it is well taken. Although many facts that would be desirable 
are not available, one can draw some sound inferences from a few 
simple biological principles. 

For the sake of concreteness, I shall proceed by listing and exam- 
ining the arguments offered in favor of unrestricted abortion. 
Most of these have been summarized conveniently by a German 
woman physician, Kite Frankenthal. I print a synopsis of her 
views in italics, to distinguish them from my comments. She 
argues: 

1. That existing laws against abortion represent merely the ex- 
pression of a legislature dominated by men and religion, and that 
they are now out of date, as women, who have achieved political free- 
dom, can no longer submit to dictation from such sources. If freedom 
of women means anything, it means freedom to abort. The law 
should conform to the wishes of a majority of the population. In this 
case the women are the only ones to be considered. The vast majority 
of them want the right to abort. Vox populi, vox dei! 

In answer one might challenge a number of the premises stated, 
but it is sufficient to say that to repeal every useful law which 
happens to oppose the convenience or desire of a large class would 
lead quickly to anarchy. A great number of people want to smug- 
gle foreign purchases through the customs, and want to evade the 
income tax; but to abolish these sources of revenue for that reason 
would be simple-minded. The question to be determined is 


ABORTION 137, 


whether or not freedom to abort is desirable. This is far too big a 
problem to be decided merely by the vote of those most stridently 
interested. 

2. The law against abortion is not obeyed, therefore it should be 
repealed, as its maintenance brings the whole principle of law-enforce- 
ment into contempt. 

This argument is no stranger to prohibitionists in the United 
States. It is fallacious. If the law is worth keeping, it should be 
enforced. Of course, it is not to be looked on as the only reliance 
against the prevalence of abortion. It is merely one of numerous 
measures which aid to diminish the number of abortions. ‘There 
is no doubt that the presence of the law is a deterrent to many 
women. If unrestricted abortions are not desirable, then this 
deterrent, among others, is valuable, and should be reénforced 
rather than removed. 

3. The morality of a people must be based on more solid ground 
than fear of punishment. 

This has a familiar sound.? It is all too true. But it has gener- 
ally been found desirable, nevertheless, to keep laws against mur- 
der, rape, burglary, and the like—and to enforce them, so far as 
possible. Why not repeal them, in order to have public morality 
and order rest on more solid grounds than fear of punishment? 

4. There are many abortions that ought to be performed in the 


2 Fear deserves a footnote. It is continually urged by reformers that society 
should not try to make people good through fear. Fear of pregnancy, fear of 
gonorrhea, fear of Mrs. Grundy, fear of the unwritten law, fear of ostracism— 
all such motives for self-control are declared to be low and degrading. Granted 
that fear is neither the “highest”? motive to which appeal can be made, nor the 
most effective in many cases, it yet has its place, among others, at the present 
time. To discard it until other and surer means of control are available would 
be folly. The child is taught first to fear fire: otherwise he might easily come 
to disaster before he was old enough to know that fire, properly handled, is a 
valuable servant and friend. Many children die of old age without ever getting 
beyond the mental horizon of childhood. Fear is still one of the best agencies 
for controlling such persons. It has been so roundly condemned in recent years 
by New Thought cults of religion and pseudo-psychology that it is in danger of 
being regarded in a false light. Evil as some fears are in many cases, yet a 
normal, biological fear has its place, and an essential one, in the world. 


118 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


interests of the state much more than those of the woman involved 
(cases of bad heredity, poverty, and the like). Freedom would permit 
these to be performed, to the state’s benefit. Under the present law, 
the state suffers. 

This is nonsense. One may also argue that there are many 
‘ tenement houses in New York City which ought to be burned down, 
and that it would be to the state’s interest to have them thus 
removed. But there are laws against arson, nevertheless, and they 
are enforced. There are (a) greater evils connected with the 
proposed remedy, than the good it would produce; and (b) there 
are other ways of getting the job done, that are less harmful than 
to throw open the gates to all abortion. 

5. The danger from abortion 1s imaginary, or at worst lies in the 
fact that it is performed furtively, by incompetent quacks. Under 
proper conditions, when the best members of the profession were 
encouraged to handle such cases, an abortion would be a routine minor 
operation. Far more serious surgical cases are handled daily by the 
hundred without grave results. 

Such ignorance of biology comes strangely from a physician. 
While there is usually nothing except danger of an infection in the 
removal of an appendix, for example, the removal of a growing 
fetus is particularly difficult. The whole object of the fetus—to 
speak figuratively—is to avoid the danger of being removed. 
Hence it is attached to the wall of the womb by a special organ, 
the placenta, that is particularly well adapted to holding on, and 
particularly resistant to being dislodged. If it were not so, the 
race would probably have become extinct hundreds of thousands 
of years ago, through excessive miscarriage. 

The placenta grows into the wall of the womb in a remarkably 
intimate way, thrusting innumerable root-like projections into 
this wall. The tissue around them breaks down, and the maternal 
blood soaks directly through a thin membrane of the placental 
tissue, thus getting into the circulation of the fetus. The danger 
incurred in an abortion is either (a) to dislodge the whole placenta 
and start a hemorrhage that will cause death, or else (b) to leave 
part of the placental tissues in the womb, thus starting blood 


ABORTION 119 


poisoning and causing death. Those who think that the pre- 
mature separation of the fetus from the womb is a slight matter 
are not well informed. 

6. There are some women who simply ought not to bear children. 
Abortion ts an absolute necessity for them. {This is an amplification 
of her point No. 4.] Such cases include married women whose 
health will not permit them to be mothers, women the victims of rape, 
and innocent young girls seduced by dissolute men of mature age. 

In answer to this it may be said that there are other ways of 
preventing childbirth than resort to an abortionist.? If awoman’s 
health is such that she can not bear children, it is possible for her 
to be rendered permanently sterile. Moreover, both law and 
medical ethics justify abortion to save a woman’s life, and many 
such operations are performed annually. The argument involving 
rape is largely fictitious, for it seems to be well established that 
conception rarely follows real rape by violence. Through fear 
and shock, however, the victim may miss a menstrual period, and 
therefore suppose that she is pregnant. The innocent young girl 
seduced by an older and dissolute man arouses pity; but what of the 
innocent young boy seduced by an older and dissolute woman? 


3’ There are some amusing contradictions in the attitudes of those who de- 
fend abortion. American Birth Control propagandists, for tactical reasons, 
usually lay great emphasis on the appalling evil of abortion, representing that 
their panacea would cure this as well as all other maladies of society. But as the 
same propagandists are often believers in the desirability of free abortion, the 
weight of their testimony is somewhat diminished. Occasionally one of them 
forgets to be politic, and speaks right out in meeting. Thus at the First 
American Birth Control Conference (New York, 1921), André Tridon declared, 
in the course of a formal address: “TI also believe one thing, that the meaning 
of the perfectly insignificant operation called abortion should be made clear to 
all women who have been mothers several times, and who are planning to have 
no more children. As I said before, the operation is extremely insignificant, 
much less dangerous than having your nails manicured, or having your face 


shaved in a more or less antiseptic barber shop. .. . . You may tell me, of 
course, that we will be breaking the law by doing so. Well, there was a famous 
man who said that in many cases the law wasanass. . . . . When you are 


feeling that you are breaking the law not to further your own personal private 
happiness, but the happiness of the community, then breaking the law is not a 
crime, but a public duty.” 


120 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


Chivalry usually leads to emphasis on the former case, and no 
mention of the latter. Is the woman in the second case also to 
have the benefit of the abortionist’s services? If not, who is to 
draw the line? 

So much for Dr. Frankenthal’s principal lines of argument. 
All of them are specious. Turning to the broader aspects of the 
problem, one must ask just what abortion really is, from a biological 
point of view. 

Advocates of abortion usually assume that it is on the same level 
as the prevention of conception. It involves the elimination from 
the mother’s body of a fertilized egg-cell which is wholly incapable 
of living under any other conditions. It can not be called the 
destruction of life, but only of potential life; and potential life is 
being destroyed by wholesale, on all sides, every day, in the ordi- 
nary course of nature. 

Such a naive point of view is untenable. 

The fact is that in the ovaries of the human female in infancy 
there are several hundred thousand undeveloped egg-cells. By 
the time of puberty most of these have already degenerated and, 
presumably, been absorbed by the body. Perhaps 30,000 or 40,000 
are left. Of this great number only 15 or 20 at the most (usually 
only three or four) will ever be fertilized and develop into babies. 
Some of the others are discharged, each month or oftener, and 
expelled from the body. The remainder either die with their 
carrier, or degenerate after the menopause. ‘There is thus a great 
waste, so to speak, of egg-cells, constantly taking place, and not 
to be prevented by any known means. (The waste is vastly greater 
in the male.) 

Once the egg-cell is fertilized, and implants itself in the wall of 
the womb, it is on another basis. It is then a living creature in a 
different sense. It will never be wasted or destroyed, under nor- 
mal conditions, but will develop into a child. It is not viable— 
that is, not capable of living alone if removed from the womb— 
until somewhat late in its development. The period is usually 
placed at the fifth month. But viability varies in each case. 
Moreover, the exact age of the fetus is never known with certainty. 


ABORTION 121 


He who would kill it and consider himself guiltless because it was 
not viable is therefore walking along a very narrow line, if there 
be any line at all. 

Dr. Frankenthal herself admits this. The measure championed 
by the German Social Democratic Party proposed that abortion 
should be unpunished only if performed during the first three 
months of the fetal life. This, as Dr. Frankenthal says, is purely 
arbitrary, therefore unreasonable, even if the age could be known 
exactly—and it can not. She might have added that expert 
abortionists prefer not to operate in less than three months, for the 
chances of success are not so good. 

Closer consideration will show that any line of demarcation is 
unwarranted. Why draw the line at three months, since the fetus 
is no more capable of living alone at four than at three? Why draw 
it at five, since, strictly speaking, the fetus is no more capable of 
living alone at seven or eight than at five? It can in any case 
exist, after it comes into the world, only with the greatest care and 
assistance. No baby ever born could live for a day unaided. 
Logically, then, there seems to be no more reason to permit the 
murder of a child before delivery than after delivery. 

Indeed, the argument may be extended still farther, with full 
justification. A child two or three years old can not live without 
the assistance of other people. It is as wholly incapable of an 
independent, unaided existence as is a three months’ fetus. It has 
to be cared for, protected, and fed; and whether this care, feeding, 
and protection take place within the mother’s body or outside it is a 
secondary consideration. If abortion is legal, why not the slaughter 
of a child at any time before it is able to protect itself and manage 
its own affairs? 

This has been the logic of many savage peoples, and of many 
others who were well up in the scale of civilization, and who did 
not hesitate to destroy infants to keep down the population. After 
the introduction of Christianity in the Roman Empire, several 
centuries of vigorous effort were necessary, before child exposure 
and child murder could be made formally illegal—much less 
abolished. 


122 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


The fact is that the attempt to set a limit, before which abortion 
is no crime, is a survival of the savage’s idea that life does not 
exist in the womb until it can be felt—that is, until the period of 
quickening, about four months after conception. Prior to that 
time, it was supposed that the fetus was not alive. This supersti- 
tion is retained in the old English common law, but it is surprising 
to find it adopted by modern writers. Needless to say, the fetus 
is just as much endowed with life one day after conception, as it is 
at the date of quickening. : 

There is another biological argument against interference with 
the developing fetus. It is not a parasite, growing at the expense 
of the mother’s body, and to be removed like a cancer. It is an 
independent living organism which exists in symbiosis with the 
mother—that is, each one gives to as well as receives from the 
other. Both benefit from the arrangement. The mother supplies 
principally food; the child, on its part,—even if but a few months 
from conception—returns the favor by supplying various internal 
secretions toitsmother. ‘The hullabaloo of Birth Control agitators 
has almost obscured the fact, in the minds of many women, that 
pregnancy is a beneficial experience to the mother. Normally, it 
increases her well-being, physically and mentally. Abortion ter- 
minates this mutually profitable symbiosis. It is unfair to the 
mother as well as to the child. 

In addition to mother and child, there is the father to be con- 
sidered. Is he to have any say about an abortion? The advocates 
seem to give him a short shrift. All he can do, says Dr. Franken- 
thal, if his wife will not let her children live, is to leave her and go 
to some other woman. On the other hand, if he himself demands 


4 Superstitions regarding pregnancy die hard. Some uncivilized races still 
hold to the notion that a baby possesses no individual existence (or perhaps no 
soul) until after it has been put to the breast and taken its first food; hence they 
feel that the killing of a newborn babe before it has nursed is not murder, but a 
reasonable form of birth control. Again, the superstition of ‘‘prenatal culture” 
or ‘maternal impressions” has had quasi-scientific support in civilized countries 
up to recent times. Now, however, it is generally relinquished by physicians to 
midwives, by midwives to old grannies, and by old grannies to Doctor Marie C. 
Stopes. 


ABORTION 123 


abortions, and his wife wants to bear children, she can not honor- 
ably oppose his wishes—all she can do is to leave him and bring 
up her children alone. It is doubtful whether such even-handed 
justice will gain many adherents. 

Most advocates of abortion lack the courage to follow their own 
arguments to a logical conclusion. Instead of giving every woman 
free rein in the matter, they would set up some kind of a tribunal 
to pass on each case and decide whether or not abortion is permissi- 
ble in the premises. 

Such a proposal has no merit. Under ordinary circumstances no 
board of arbitrators can properly be given the right to take life— 
and abortion amounts to exactly that. A plausible plea can often 
be made in favor of allowing some woman to have an abortion per- 
formed, but it would be highly unsafe to give any tribunal power 
to weigh such cases and pronounce judgment of death. 

Ordinary murder seems to me to furnish a close parallel. No 
tribunal has the right to mark out any person for slaughter, and 
when such a right is assumed by mobs, revolutionary committees, 
or secret organizations, it is regarded as a menace to society. ‘The 
man who kills must take the responsibility on his own shoulders. 
His action may afterward be approved. He may have killed in 
self-defense, or in defense of wife or child, and no one will condemn 
him. But he must expect, in advance, to be held to account for 
his actions. The time for him to exercise discretion is before he 
pulls the trigger. 

True, a judge or jury may sentence a criminal to death. If so, 
he has had his day in court. He has been tried, heard in his own 
defense, had the power to summon witnesses, had the protection 
of procedure that is devised expressly to prevent the conviction of 
an innocent man; and after all this a jury of his peers has found 
him guilty of capital offense against society. Even then, he has 
the right of appeal. 

Is the same process to be applied to an unborn child? If so, 
what is the charge against him? 

Even this time-honored procedure is gradually falling into dis- 
favor, and it is probable that capital punishment will be a thing 


124 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


of the past in civilized countries in the near future. More and 
more, public opinion is coming to think that when the state itself 
commits murder, it is destroying some of its most precious ethical 
values. 

And certainly any state that permits the promiscuous murder of 
unborn children is inevitably destroying the sentiments and feelings 
on which its very existence depends. 

What, then, is the way out? As usual, there is no panacea. 
On the one hand, every measure that tends to cut down extra- 
marital intercourse will cut down the demand for abortions. On 
the other hand, every measure that tends toward the readjustment 
of the birth-rate, and toward-a better public understanding of the 
place of children in life, will likewise curtail the demand for abor- 
tions. Beyond that, an awakening to the tremendous proportions 
of the evil, and a vigorous campaign of law-enforcement, are 
needed. 


xX. INADEQUATE REPRODUCTION IN SUPERIOR 
FAMILIES 


1. Who are the superior? No one denies that some people are 
worth more to the community, and to themselves, than are others. 
Not only the genius, the inventor, the statesman, the prophet; 
but the hard-working father and mother, who enjoy life, help 
others to do the same, contribute something worth while to the 
world, and bring up a good-sized family of healthy and useful 
children—all these persons are generally recognized as good citizens, 
worthy of honor. 

On the other hand there is a very different class, even though a 
limited one, comprising the feebleminded, the degenerate, the 
physically defective, the “born criminal,’ and the like. It is 
generally agreed that society could get along without them, and 
that in most instances both they and the nation would be better 
off if they had not been born. 

While there are always voices raised in protest when the eugenist 
speaks of superior persons, it thus appears that the existence of 
some differences is never denied, even though no two persons agree 
as to the exact limits of the classes that contain the desirable and 
the undesirable citizens. 

For the present purpose superior people will be defined as those 
who have, to a greater degree than the average, inherited the capa- 
bility of (a) living past maturity, (b) reproducing adequately, (c) 
living happily, and (d) making contributions to the productivity, 
happiness, and progress of society. Emphasis is laid on the inborn 
capability, because there may be some who are born with such 
capability but who through no fault of their own do not achieve 
success: they are yet to be classed among the eugenic superiors. 
On the other hand there are those who, though “born to the 
purple,” are not born with the traits above mentioned. Regard- 
less of their rank and wealth, they are to be classed as eugenically 
inferior. 

Ws) 


126 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


It is not necessary here to go into further detail, or to make any 
invidious distinctions. If the above-mentioned traits tend to go 
together (they do, in fact, to a marked extent) then by definition 
something like one-half of the American nation—i.e., all above the 
average—is to be regarded as superior, in varying degree. 

2. What is adequate reproduction? A common-sense view 
would suppose that the birth-rate of this group should, in the inter- 
est of the race, be at least enough to maintain its own numbers 
from generation to generation. Most of the progress made in any 
country is due to the superior half of its population. Within 
limits, the amount of progress will depend directly on the propor- 
tion of superior people. If the percentage falls, the progress of the 
race will begin to slow down. If the percentage rises, the race 
will make strides ahead more rapidly than ever before. One 
might at least hope, therefore, that the superior part of the popula- 
tion would have enough children to keep from dying out. This 
would require, as shown in Part I, that each married pair have at 
least four children, or bring at least three to maturity. 

The number of superior people in each generation is made 
up primarily of those born in that class, and secondarily, of those 
who have come up from the ranks, who have emerged from the 
horde of unskilled workers (urban or rural) to display talents far 
beyond those of their original associates. It has been supposed 
by some writers that the number of those in the class last-mentioned 
is practically unlimited, and that nothing more is needed than to 
give them a chance; to develop education, promote social justice, 
and thereby produce, from any walk of life whatsoever, as many 
leaders as may be needed in each generation. By this hypothesis, 
it would make little difference whether the present group of 
superiors reproduced itself or not, for if it did not, it could be 
replaced easily from the great reservoir of undeveloped talent at 
the bottom of the social order. 

Such a hypothesis is untenable. The reasons, which are set 
forth at length in Applied Eugenics and elsewhere, can not be 
summarized here further than to say that it does not square with 
the facts of heredity. But granting for the sake of argument that 


INADEQUATE REPRODUCTION IN SUPERIOR FAMILIES 127 


proper education and a square deal had unlimited power to raise 
men from the depths to the heights, yet this would not be an ade- 
quate substitute for the reproduction of those already on the 
heights; for it will be generally admitted that the homes and family 
circles of the latter are, if not better, at least easier places in which 
to develop good character than are the lowest types of congested 
and insanitary tenements. ‘Thus on any hypothesis it is desirable 
that those who have demonstrated themselves to be superior 
should reproduce. Every effort should be made to draw from the 
“submerged tenth” the utmost of human ability that it contains; 
but this effort can not possibly make it less desirable for the present 
prosperous and efficient members of the community to bear 
children. 

It is, moreover, obviously desirable that the most highly- 
endowed bear the most children, and that the least highly-endowed 
bear the fewest, if there are to be differences in the birth-rate. 

These are elementary biological facts that seem self-evident, 
yet it is surprising how often they are ignored in discussions of 
population. 

3. What is the present reproduction of the superiors? It is im- 
possible to answer this question directly, since there are no figures 
applying directly to superiors in the sense in which the word is here 
used. But by examining the birth-rate in a number of different 
groups, one can see something of the movement of evolution. 

It will be found that the old native white stock is dying out 
rapidly in the northeastern states, where it is being replaced by the 
children of more recent immigrants; and that, on the whole, the 
increase of population comes from people living in the country 
(above all, in the west and south) and from the poorer part of 
city populations everywhere. The more well-to-do in all cities 
have lower birth-rates, and usually do not perpetuate themselves. 

Thus there is a constant drain of people, in each generation, 
from the farms to the cities, where they die without having left 
sufficient representatives to take their places. At the same time 
there is a constant rise of the abler residents of the city’s worst 


128 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


districts, into affluence and better residential districts, where they 
likewise die without having left children to fill their places. 

The result of these broad trends is that an important part of the 
natural ability of the country is used up in each generation. Amer- 
ican cities now contain roughly half of the entire population of the 
nation. The successful, well-to-do part of the city population 
dies without leaving enough children to fill the ranks. The dis- 
appearance of this element from the nation is, however, prevented 
because the poorer districts of the cities, and the remaining half 
of the population living in the country, send forward each year a 
batch of new recruits. 

Two questions are thus presented. (a) Is it desirable that the 
most productive part of the urban population should die off? (b) 
Is the reservoir, in the lower urban and the rural population, which 
is now making up the deficit, inexhaustible; or will the best elements 
in this reservoir gradually be exhausted, too, until only the dregs 
are left? 

The first question can be answered without hesitation. It is a 
national calamity that the part of the population which does the 
most for progress should, in each generation, perish. Although 
this section by no means contains all of the eugenically superior 
(as defined above), and does contain many who are inferior; yet it 
contains a larger proportion of eugenically superior than do the 
lowest strata—the ‘‘submerged tenth” or perhaps even the ‘‘sub- 
merged third.” 

The second question has been more debated. It can not be 
disputed seriously, however, that it is possible in time to exhaust 
this or any other human reservoir, and that the average quality will 
tend to be lower each year. 

Turning from these broad and general considerations to a few 
details, the discussion will here be limited to members of the white 
race in America. 

College graduates form a group which is distinctly superior to 
the average in mental ability and family background. Neither 
men nor women have a birth-rate high enough to reproduce 
the group. So far as is known, however, the birth-rate of college 


INADEQUATE REPRODUCTION IN SUPERIOR FAMILIES 129 


men is about twice as high as that of college women. For example, 
the number of children! per graduate is, at 


Ce ALOE Meer dince sO res Go) cbs nics Gfabeoute: ake ene a ale sive ny Gh aa ermiar bre ohh 1.99 
peclob mettre) Gui 9 Oma) Riek 66 SE a Ae TR Ra AC I PO eae 1.71 
Pay Pe AIS@ PU INCLL) i cite tt weer tiaterciet tins Ala vier ccreonis cle a ahstale vige eUiu te 1.66 
ASR DMeM STUN cers tein ne eS hist hia saline a siste stators ain'a'e oak attess 0.90 
SSIES Eh Bee RG IA See ike GNA Aly AB A coh AA Ed 9 RL cy 0.86 
RTOS ISCGL WICH We treta tee teieite um cee S che alelel ges oi uiein ae alate 0.83 
PREV UNA Re ee em y een ate LANG thes ek od eee ihe eae ale ccs Baa. So Bek 0.37 
Wellesiew NOMOTECHOLAIS Caen Ute tere cule e anaes crew elivie gd 0.20 


The number of children per married graduate is, at 


Vel Grevertte Cerone ieee eee ised arte adds kewpchrat anne &lel,aa 2 are. aos gies 2.57 
AREAL eee tarre alate erties raters cate tea arene atere ce ole wieva wicks repre 9 Tea) 
PS VTACUSOT INCI) We ciate scaiPe ele to cy eked Ga rewnen es ie Cle ee aaiace ate 2.06 
aI SSAL RN Pua ee NO tech ea hi OMe ciate eCcln A ee Siig otal aha Sales watalaely a 102 
RELICS OVA perme RA Tari cle Mee eae EG IeE tla! Sadat Bie tha iataes RMI Sul 1.56 
SUTACUSE A WOIICIL) «/Mbare vials sikrtentslelareln cle etele win atin eralchentous ain 1.46 
BSEVTIRIVEAW 2 patties eat c ait etre aiatenyl othe cha Muta lets lers. oe © sete nih xo ea eck ei 0.84 
BVelicste va Honor Scholars) vee sib dered ats oieten peere scales yale wie's © 0.57 


Among college professors and men of science, the two-child family 
has been virtually standardized. 

A study published late in 1924 by the Bureau of Census gives 
the number of children that had been borne to fathers aged 45 to 49 
in various occupations. The age of the fathers makes it certain 
that the family is complete or nearly so. The average size of 
family, in groups where more than 1,000 births altogether were 
reported, is given in the tabulation on page 130. 

Most of the people represented in these groups are no doubt of 
good stock, the perpetuation of which is desirable, and it is gratify- 
ing to note that, so far as this fragmentary investigation represents 
the entire situation, they are more than perpetuating themselves. 
But it will be noted that none of these furnishes the bulk of the 
leadership of the nation. Among the 1000 leading American men 


1 T give the gross birth-rate in every case, since the child mortality is in some 
cases not known. If the net birth-rate (which is the significant one, eugenically) 
could be given, it would of course be lower. See Paul Popenoe, 1917. 


130 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


NUMBER OF | NUMBER OF poche 


OCCUPATION PERTHS | CHILDREN | CIEDREN 

IN 1923 rN 1923. «| PORT aaa 
Coal mine Operatives: s vin ci ves ae te ae heh 2,679 6.6 8.1 
Farm laborers...... eitet a ee CoAT Ce aie WES 3,074 6.0 ive 
General [aborersy ance ens eh ee ca eee e 10,069 5.8 Ya? 
DEMI-SKIMEd OPerativesisy ciwewed saint ee e.s ees 3,602 5.4 6.4 
Carpenters ie oy Cree eine oie ea gh eatin 2,048 5.4 G32 
Mechanits 4.4 e2e0r os tian aoe Meek i teed 1,622 5.0 A ie 
Retail and wholesale dealers............... SF292 4.8 DD 
Other merchants, miscellaneous............ 1,243 4.0 4.5 


of science, there is not one son of a day laborer. It takes 48,000 
unskilled laborers to produce one man distinguished enough to 
get in Who’s Who, while the same number of Congregational 
ministers produces 6,000 persons eminent enough to be included 
in that work of reference. ) 

Bootblacks, who had the highest birth-rate next to coal miners, 
in the above study, had just about twice as many children as did 
the bankers whose shoes they shined. Dentists, physicians, and 
surgeons had three children apiece, as did architects, artists, 
chemists, lawyers, judges, musicians, technical engineers, actors, 
designers, inventors, and brokers. As there are many unmarried 
or childless men in the latter occupations, it is evident that these 
professions are not reproducing themselves. Yet these and similar 
groups are the ones from which a number of children much larger 
than the average would be of particular benefit to the race. 

4. What are the immediate causes of the low fecundity of the supe- 
rior? Among them are: 

(a) Late marriages. While the average age at marriage in the 
United States, as in most other civilized countries, has shown a 
slight tendency to drop in recent decades, the age at marriage of 
the most highly educated part of the community shows a tendency 
to increase, the period of preparation being lengthened steadily. 
Many professional schools now require a bachelor’s degree for 
entrance. The graduate of such a school must establish himself 
in business after he gets his diploma; he can rarely hope to marry 


INADEQUATE REPRODUCTION IN SUPERIOR FAMILIES Bt 


before the age of 30 and, with the stress of competition, the age 
tends to be pushed up towards 40. The unskilled laborer, on the 
other hand, can marry as soon as he reaches maturity. Indeed, 
his earning power may be greater at 20, in the vigor of youth, than 
at 40. 

(b) Fewer marriages. In the nation as a whole, the percentage 
of marriages is rising slightly, but in the higher ranks there is a 
tendency to bachelorhood, which leaves one-fourth of the men 
college graduates permanently unwed. The marriage rate of 
college women is more variable, and uniformly lower. In some 
of the coeducational colleges of the middle west it reaches 60 per- 
cent, or even 70 percent, while in other institutions, including all 
the separate women’s colleges of the east, and such widely different 
coeducational universities as Stanford and Syracuse, it is below 50 
percent. 

(c) Fewer children per marriage. This is the great cause of the 
falling birth-rate. Is it voluntary or involuntary? 

Although the number of sterile marriages has increased steadily 
for many decades, they are not the principal source of the fall. 
It isa matter of common notoriety that people are nowadays having 
fewer children than their parents did, because they do not want too 
many children, and because they take deliberate and more or less 
effective means to prevent having children. Studies at the Uni- 
versity of Wisconsin by E. A. Ross and at the University of Cali- 
fornia by S. J. Holmes showed that the present students come from 
three-child families, while their grandparents had five or six 
children each.? 

Of 1,000 married women above the average in education, who 
answered the questionnaire of Katherine Bement Davis, three- 
fourths stated that they used contraceptive methods. It is inter- 
esting to note that those who used such methods had both more 
pregnancies and more living children than those who never used 
any contraceptive measures. Of the women who “took no precau- 


2 J. McKeen Cattell has pointed out the statistical reasons why people always 
come from larger families than they themselves have. The above figures can 
not, therefore, be taken quite at their face value. 


132 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


tions,” none had had more than seven pregnancies, and only 12 
had had more than five. Of the women who used contraceptives, 
six had had eight pregnancies each, two had had nine, two eleven, 
while one woman reported 12 and another 13 pregnancies—an 
eloquent testimonial to the efficiency of Birth Control! ‘Those 
(average age 37 years) who had used contraceptives had had 2.5 
pregnancies and 1.93 children each, while those (average age 41 
years) who had never used such measures had had 1.65 pregnancies 
and 1.31 children each. These paradoxical results may indicate 
to some extent that the women who did not use contraceptives 
were those who had less need of them, because of a natural tendency 
to barrenness. But the number of cases in which there had not 
even been one pregnancy was slightly greater among those who 
used contraceptives, than among those who did not. 

While all the factors that have been mentioned in Section 7 
enter into the declining birth-rate, it is not disputed, I believe, that 
voluntary limitation of pregnancies is the chief factor. 

5. What are the indirect causes of the low fertility of the superior? 
They are largely associated with life in great cities, and they have 
been found in every civilization that built great cities. They 
represent the interaction of biologic, economic, national, social, 
religious, and ethical influences, which operate first on the fre- 
quency and manner of sexual intercourse and secondly on the 
changing of its natural result. From this formula it will be clear 
that no simple explanation can be given. 

Biological causes of the lower birth-rate in the city may include 
the general unwholesome conditions of city life, the higher nervous 
tension, too poor or too rich diet, greater prevalence of venereal 
diseases, greater frequency of abortion and resulting barrenness, 
and the like. These are unquestionably of less importance than 
the social and economic factors. Broadly, the birth-rate may be 
said to vary inversely with social position. ‘The latter is a function 
of revenue and education. Hence the birth-rate is likely to be 
lowest where revenue is highest and education most specialized. 

But such generalizations convey little meaning. It is more 
profitable to analyze some of the causes in detail, even at the risk 
of losing a certain amount of perspective. 


INADEQUATE REPRODUCTION IN SUPERIOR FAMILIES 133 


For the present purpose, the broadest distinction that can be 
made in society is that between hand-workers and brain-workers. 
While the classes are not sharply distinct, and there is a continual 
transfer from one to the other, popular usage recognizes the dis- 
tinction as valid, and boys and girls starting out in life are often 
much concerned as to whether they will land in one or the other 
class—whether they will have dirty hands or white collars. 

Among the poorer hand-workers there is little voluntary limita- 
tion of the size of family. The people in this class do not know how 
to limit their families, and sometimes do not care a great deal about 
learning, because they do not feel the burden of a fairly large 
family as keenly as people in the higher classes. The child is not 
such a handicap; it goes to work at an early age, and contributes 
something to the family. Moreover, this class always contains a 
certain proportion of the thoughtless and improvident and sub- 
normal, who would not exercise the restraint necessary to prevent 
childbirth, even if they knew how. 

Among the more intelligent hand-workers, the skilled laborers 
and trades union members, there is more widespread limitation of 
families. Many of these people want to keep down the number of 
laborers in the population, thereby hoping to raise wages. Others 
want to give their children better opportunities than they them- 
selves had, which means that the child will have a longer education 
and probably not make any financial return to the parents before 
his own marriage. Others are ambitious to get ahead them- 
selves, and do not want the trouble or expense of children. 

Passing to the brain-workers, one finds that voluntary restric- 
tion of the size of family is nearly universal. Among the merely 
well-to-do, the ambition of the father frequently causes this: he 
is immersed in his work, determined to forge ahead, and leaves 
every detail of home life to his wife; or he wants all his money to 
put into his business. The wife, on her side, is often a climber; the 
couple is determined to have a better automobile than it can afford; 
to keep up appearances; children interfere in many ways with 
these efforts, consequently they are not born. Many wives want 
some sort of “‘career;’’ many others are of the purely parasitic type; 


134 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


while even those who do want children find city life particularly 
unfavorable for bringing up a family of the normal size; expenses 
excessive on every side and conveniences—even a place to live— 
hard to obtain. Desire to travel, to acquire “‘culture,” and other 
distractions likewise tend to keep down the birth-rate, so that this 
class rarely bears enough children to maintain its own numbers. 

Above the level of the well-to-do are the wealthy, practicing 
birth control almost universally, conspicuous exceptions being 
some of the enormously rich families who desire to found ‘‘dynas- 
ties.”’ Inastudy of 600 millionaires, P. Sorokin found the average 
family to consist of four or five children. Ambition and love of 
ease are prevailing motives.among the wealthy; riches bring cares, 
opportunities for selfish enjoyment—in short, a multiplicity of 
competing interests, to which children are sacrificed. Both men 
and women are usually insatiable climbers; the girls are too often 
brought up as pampered parasites, educated at “‘finishing”’ schools 
and women’s separate colleges; their ideals are normally impossible 
of attainment, and by the time they are ready to settle down and 
marry some man in moderate circumstances, sharing with him the 
trials as well as the joys of bringing up a family, they have often 
passed the age when marriage is possible. 

This class, like many others, rarely reproduces its own numbers. 
It is continually dying out at the top and being replaced from below. 
This condition is in a way particularly unfortunate, because its 
example is so widely admired and followed by people in classes 
below it. 

6. How can conditions be changed to favor the production of larger 
families among the superior? If the foregoing analysis is in large 
part correct, it is obvious that a new attitude toward reproduction 
is required, with the reconstruction of features of society that favor 
the present wrong attitudes. 

It is no simple matter to bring about such a change. It means 
innumerable readjustments, large and small. Much of Part III 
will be devoted to this problem. Here it is sufficient to point out 
a few lines along which one might hope for immediate progress. 

Obviously a thoroughgoing reconstruction of education is neces- 


INADEQUATE REPRODUCTION IN SUPERIOR FAMILIES 135 


sary. This must (a) prepare young people to be intelligent parents 
and (b) make it feasible, especially for superior young men, to 
earn enough to maintain a family, at an earlier age than is now 
often possible. All phases of education directly concerned with 
the home must be handled in a very different manner from the 
present. 

Economic fair play is needed, so that income may be more pro- 
portionate to real worth. Taxation may be revised to this end. 

Most important of all is a change in attitude toward reproduc- 
tion, on which Roswell H. Johnson has been insisting effectively for 
many years. Let honor be given where it is due, and pity or con- 
tempt where they, on the other hand, are deserved. 

Faulty education of men is the reason for the celibacy of many 
young women. Vigorous effort must be made to correct it. On 
the other hand, are all superior single women wholly to be excused 
for their situation? It seems probable that many of them have 
deliberately allowed themselves to fall into a rut, where they 
make no marriageable acquaintances, or where they absorb an 
anti-social misanthropy that too often cloaks an inferiority complex 
based on their celibacy. The healthy and intelligent married 
woman who could have a normal family and who has only a child or 
two is, in most cases, pulling back on the wheels of racial progress. 
There was much talk during the World War of the heroism and 
nobility of those women who gave their sons to death: is there not 
an occasional word to be said for those who give sons, and daugh- 
ters, to life? If, on the other hand, the husband is responsible for 
limitation of births beyond necessity, double condemnation must 
be his, since he has not even the trouble of bearing the children. 

In men’s industrial work, various grades of efficiency are recog- 
nized. There is the ambitious, productive man, filled with the 
pride of good workmanship; there is the slacker, the loafer and 
“‘soldier;” lowest of all, there is the parasitic agitator, whose only 
work is sabotage, and who is regarded as a criminal. 

In woman’s work—motherhood—these same grades may be 
distinguished. ‘There is the productive mother; there is the slacker, 
the parasite letting others do her work; finally there is the vicious 


136 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


and criminal element engaged in sabotage. This consists largely of 
oversexed and incontinent young spinsters and divorcees, and of 
undersexed, celibate spinsters of older age, all of whom, under the 
banner of individualism, are destroying the machinery of society. 
Far from being admired as emancipated women whose careers 
should be emulated, these (and their male accomplices) should be 
regarded with the contempt they deserve, and which their brothers 
of similar records in industry actually receive—contempt of every 
honest worker, and of the public which, in the long run, is the chief 
sufferer from every attempt to foster revolt in place of evolution. 


XI. EXCESSIVE REPRODUCTION IN INFERIOR 
FAMILIES 


Children born in homes where squalor, poverty, disease, crime, 
and mental defect are the rule, usually either die young or live 
to be handicap to themselves, their parents, and the nation. A 
sentimental and unbiological attitude toward parenthood has in 
the past too often encouraged such a travesty on real parenthood: 
so that, for example, a feebleminded girl in the almshouse would 
be encouraged to become the wife of some degenerate farmer in the 
neighborhood, in order that she might know the beauty of matern- 
ity and—above all—in order that the community might no 
longer be put to the expense of her support. Of course, when she 
came back to the almshouse, 10 years later, after being deserted 
by her husband, and brought with her four or five feebleminded 
offspring to add to the burden of the county, the problem of 
motherhood was sometimes seen, by a few persons, in a different 
light. 

In homes where foresight and prudence are lacking, where 
alcoholism is common, and where little restraint is put on natural 
inclinations, the birth-rate is likely to be high. One hundred 
dependent families of native white stock, reported by H. J. Hal- 
verson, showed an average of 6.5 children each. Feebleminded 
persons who applied for relief to the Associated Charities of Madi- 
son, Wis., were found, according to O. E. Baker (Paul Popenoe, 
1918) to have 6.2 children each. A. H. Estabrook discovered, in 
his study of the great Juke clan, a group of several thousand 
criminals, imbeciles, paupers, and ne’er-do-wells, that the women 
have on the average 4.3 children apiece—twice as many as do 
college professors’ wives. 

Without going into tedious detail on this subject (the facts of 
which have often been exaggerated) it will be admitted by most 
people that childbirth in families markedly characterized by 

137 


138 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


“the three D’s’—defect, delinquency, and degeneracy—is rarely 
a blessing to any one concerned, and that if it can be prevented, the 
gain will be unmixed. 

Considering the character of the parents, little can be expected 
from their voluntary co-operation. They are not capable of it, 
even if they wanted to give it. Society must interfere, for their 
benefit as wellasitsown. The methods of interference most widely 
favored are sterilization and segregation. 

Advocates of sterilization argue that nothing more is necessary 
than to perform compulsorily (under suitable laws) appropriate 
operations on men and women of the classes under discussion. 
Such operations make it impossible for the persons to have chil- 
dren, although they do not otherwise interfere with the sexual life 
in any way. They are relatively inexpensive; they are done once 
for all; and society may then wash its hands of the case, confident 
that it will not in the future be troubled by the offspring of these 
misfits. 

Of the objections that may be brought against this procedure, 
two are most often heard. (1) Sterilization does not safeguard 
all the interests of society, for while it does (in most cases, at least) 
remove the individual from the list of possible parents, it does not 
make it any less likely that he or she will be a sexual delinquent, 
spreading vice and disease on all sides. It is therefore not adapted 
to the delinquent type, unless accompanied by proper supervision. 

(2) Such a course does not adequately discharge society’s duty 
to the individual. The man under consideration is, it must be 
remembered, physically or mentally defective in one way or 
another, and quite incapable of holding his own in competition 
with the normal members of society, in the struggle for existence. 
This defect is, indeed, one of the reasons for his delinquency, in 
many cases. Simply to sterilize him and then to set him free, 
to stand or fall, is cruel. It is also unwise from the narrowest 
point of view, for it is nearly certain that he will make trouble for 
society in many other ways than by mere reproduction: he will 
become, or continue to be, a dependent or a delinquent. And 


EXCESSIVE REPRODUCTION IN INFERIOR FAMILIES 139 


whatever is true of men in these respects is doubly true of women. 
Society therefore owes to itself, as well as to the individual con- 
cerned, to give further protection by life-long custodial care. This 
objection is valid with reference to some classes of defectives, but 
the experience of California, where some 5,000 operations have been 
performed to date, indicates that there are many defectives who 
can not only be trusted safely in charge of relatives after steriliz- 
ation, and live useful lives in the community, but may even marry 
happily. Usually the individual and his relatives are much pleased 
to have had the operation performed. 

Segregation with life-long custodial care, which is already in 
operation in most states for a minute percentage of the feeble- 
minded, should be extended to take in other misfits who can not 
hope to make their own way in the world successfully, and whose 
inadequacy is a source of harm both to themselves and to society. 

There is a third measure, much more widely “‘‘agitated”’ than 
either sterilization or segregation, which requires consideration 
here. This is Birth Control, which I write with capital letters 
to distinguish it from the proper sense which the words would 
naturally have if used alone. 

Birth Control, while pseudo-biological, has in fact become a 
quasi-religious cult, its god a modern Moloch whom only the 
continual sacrifice of little children can prevent from wreaking 
vengeance on his abject worshippers. Like other new cults, it is 
marked by zeal, fanaticism, intolerance, and enjoyment of mild 
martyrdom, together with lack of a sense of humor. ‘That it is 
actually religious (i.e., based on belief in a different order of things 
than any found in this world) may be seen by considering it in 
France. Quality of population is as desirable in France as in any 
other nation; but beyond this, if there is any nation whose people 
might be pardoned for temporarily seeking quantity, it is France, 
where deaths often exceed births, where more than three millions 
of population were lost through the World War, where thousands of 
acres of good farm land are lying idle for lack of hands, and where 
several millions of unassimilable immigrants have had to be im- 


140 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


ported in recent years to do the necessary work of the country. 
Yet in these circumstances the Birth Control missionaries are just 
as indiscriminately active in France as elsewhere, rending heaven 
with their outcry against “breeding like rabbits,” in a country 
where two children already make a large family! 

Like most other cults, Birth Control professes admirable pur- 
poses: indeed, it promises a near approach to, if not actual arrival 
at, the Millennial Dawn, for the success of the cult would, so its 
votaries say, exterminate war, wipe out poverty and misery, remedy 
the housing shortage, allay industrial unrest, reduce ignorance and 
crime, diminish alcoholism, emancipate woman, favor early mar- 
riage, prolong the span of human life, check the spread of venereal 
diseases, abolish child labor, eliminate illegitimacy, obviate abor- 
tion, and produce a new race of supermalthusians, superior in 
physique, mentality, wealth, culture, and ethics to anything now 
known, 

The real meaning of Birth Control is birth prevention, or more 
exactly, the prevention of conception, which is to be brought 
about by the use of certain methods, on which the propagandists 
differ widely. All the benefits mentioned in the preceding para- 
graph, and others too numerous to mention, are to ensue from the 
general practice of “‘voluntary parenthood.” If mothers bear 
children only if, when, and as wanted, the New Era will be ushered 
in. Ata blast from the trumpet of a feminist Gabrielle, multi- 
tudes of happy parents with their child will begin to throng the 
streets of gold, while Capitalism and Militarism will be cast into 
outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. 

Now the fact is that some means of control of conception has 
been in use ever since the beginning of history; that artificial means 
of preventing conception are in almost universal use at the present 
day among civilized people; and that it is highly desirable, if not 
necessary, for parents to use intelligence in planning and producing 
their families. ‘These facts are denied by few thinking and inde- 
pendent people. Birth control practice, in one form or another, 
is recognized by the general population as proper. Why, then, 
the furore? 


EXCESSIVE REPRODUCTION IN INFERIOR FAMILIES 141 


The principal hindrance to an extension of rational birth control 
practice at the present time is nothing more nor less than the 
Birth Control propaganda. In a nation which has been notorious 
for bad propaganda for bad causes, nothing has surpassed in bad- 
ness that of Birth Control, and the sooner the extreme and char- 
acteristic forms of this propaganda are repudiated and suppressed, 
the sooner will the proper spread and legalization of birth control 
practice be possible. 

Scientifically, the main objections to the Birth Control propa- 
ganda are: 

1. It is a purely emotional production, an appeal to sentiment, 
based on individual cases written up in the style which Suffering 
Womanhood popularized in describing its symptoms to the late 
lamented Lydia E. Pinkham. 

2. It has no constructive program—not even a program of 
application. It simply proposes to let down the bars. Even its 
proponents admit that this will do some harm, but they claim that 
the harm will be more than counterbalanced by the resulting good. 
“The end justifies the means.”? But why should there not be an 
intelligent plan of action that would at least minimize, if not wholly 
prevent, this harm? Since the Birth Control propagandists virtu- 
ally admit that letting down the bars will increase sexual promis- 
cuity, is it not incumbent on them to come forward with a con- 
structive program, instead of their present wholly negative and 
destructive one? Unless, indeed, they take the position that an 
increase of promiscuity is a negligible matter. 

3. The Birth Control propaganda has been pushed with a reck- 
less disregard for biology, and for science in general; and largely by 
persons who have no acquaintance with science, and seemingly no 
desire to become acquainted with it. Many of the conspicuous 
professional agitators are either spinsters, or unhappily married 
women and divorcees, with no children or at most a child or two. 
Any psychologist knows why they are crusading for Birth Control. 
Not one of them has, to my knowledge, ever shown a sound con- 
ception of the population problem. 

This problem presents innumerable aspects, but the present 


142 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


discussion may be limited to four, which represent the respective 
interests of (a) the family, (b) the nation, (c) the race, and (d) the 
world. A large volume would be too small to expound any one of 
these fully. Here only a salient point or two can be mentioned. 

(a) Itis to the interest of the family to have a number of children 
proportioned to their quality, and also to such factors as the 
finances of the parents and the strength of the mother. Normal 
people do not bear children altruistically, to prevent race suicide; 
but selfishly, because they find greater pleasure in superior children 
than in anything else. The first great disservice which the Birth 
Control propagandists have done the family is to talk as if children 
were an almost intolerable burden, a curse to be avoided at almost 
any cost. A child or two may be endured in case of necessity, but 
every pregnancy is for the mother a step toward the grave, for the 
father a step toward bankruptcy, for both a step toward slavery. 
Such an attitude, probably quite unconscious, strikes the reader 
in every chapter of Margaret Sanger’s books. Nothing could be 
more untrue. Childbearing is desirable in order that people may 
be happy individuals and good citizens. 

(b) The interest of the nation is to be strong, vigorous, and pro- 
gressive. To this end it requires an optimum population, propor- 
tionate to the food supply, to the organization of industry, and to 
many other economic factors. The Birth Control obsession is 
based on two fallacies: first, that “the fewer people, the better they 
will live,” and secondly, that the optimum has already been passed 
in modern civilization. England, it is asserted, would be better 
off with 10 or 15 million less people than it actually has; and the 
implication always is, if conditions are so hideous now, think what 
they will be in two or three more generations! 

If the case were as bad as represented, these excess millions might 
well colonize Canada, Australia, and South Africa. But the fact 
is that no nation can afford to have a sudden drop in its population, 
for the whole intricate structure of modern civilization is built 
on a given body of people, and any large withdrawal of people 
from under it is equivalent to withdrawing the foundations from a 
skyscraper. If population is to be reduced, it must be done very 


EXCESSIVE REPRODUCTION IN INFERIOR FAMILIES 143 


gradually, by decreasing birth-rate, until a stationary population 
is attained. Less than a stationary population—.e., a declining 
population—is a source of danger in many ways, unless the decline 
is almost imperceptibly slow. 

How is it with Great Britain in this respect? ‘The population 
was some 37 millions in 1925. A. L. Bowley has calculated that, 
if the present rates of birth, death, and emigration continue, the 
population will increase to about 45 or 46 million about 1941, 
and thereafter will begin to diminish. Other statisticians have 
put the maximum at not more than 41 or 42 millions. It does not 
appear, then, that there is reason to go into hysterics over the 
future of Great Britain, for the decline is likely to be more rapid 
and to come sooner than the calculations indicate, because the 
death rate is not likely to rise rapidly, while the birth rate is likely 
to fall and emigration to increase. 

France has already been mentioned. It offers an admirable 
illustration of what actually happens in a Birth Control state. 
There Africans, Asiatics, and illiterate Slavs are being imported 
by the hundred thousand to keep the machinery going, and thereby 
presumably forcing down still further the birth rate of the old 
native stock. The French people have proved abundantly that 
they have no sentimental repugnance to the idea or the methods 
of birth control. They have had a chance to experience the effects. 
They ought to be the best witnesses for it. But aside from a few 
fanatics, the French people certainly show little pleasure over the 
results of the policy. 

New England is an equally good example. How is it with the 
United States as a whole? 

The fact is that, in the old white stock of the northeastern United 
States, the birth rate has been falling for a century or more. 
Among Mayflower descendants whose ancestry was studied by 
S. J. Holmes and C. M. Doud, parents born between 1810 and 1830 
had six children, while those born between 1870 and 1880 had one 
and a half. 

The increase in population in the United States is now almost 
wholly due to immigrants, and to the old white population on the 
farms. 


144 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


With restriction of immigration, the foreign source of increase 
will dry up steadily. With continuing trend of population toward 
the cities, the rural source of increase will dry up steadily. 

Moreover, the increase has been due in part to a falling death 
rate. But this can not continue to fall indefinitely—all people 
must die some time. ‘Therefore this source of increase will tend 
to disappear. 

The plain conclusion is that overpopulation in the United States 
in any generation that can now be foreseen is a bogey as mythical 
as the Minotaur. On the contrary, the stage is all set for a steady 
decrease in the rate of growth of the nation. It is of no great 
importance to call for a lower birth rate in general now, (although 
some decline will not be harmful), but it is of tremendous impor- 
tance to call for a higher birth rate among those people who can be 
assets rather than liabilities to the nation. 

(c) The racial aspect of birth control is one of the most important 
and mostignored. If charity begins at home, Birth Control should 
begin abroad. Continued limitation of offspring in the white 
race simply invites the black, brown, and yellow races to finish the 
work already begun by Birth Control, and reduce the whites to a 
subject race preserved merely for the sake of its technical skill, 
as the Greeks were by the Romans. 

A reasonable regard for self-preservation and racial values makes 
it appear that Birth Control missionaries might well be sent to the 
other races of the world, and required to convert those races before 
they were allowed to return and establish their peculiar kind of 
millennium at home. 

(d) Looking at the world as a whole, the first question to be 
asked is whether the food supply will be sufficient a few centuries 
hence, to feed the population that will exist at that time. There 
is no need here to indulge in the popular pastime of belaboring 
the corpse of Thomas R. Malthus. It is sufficient to say, in the 
first place, that the population of the world will probably not con- 
tinue to increase as rapidly as some statisticians have supposed, 
and in the second place that the development of the vegetable food 
resources of the world, by applying even such knowledge of plant- 


EXCESSIVE REPRODUCTION IN INFERIOR FAMILIES 145 


breeding and horticulture as is now available, can increase those 
resources almost incredibly. Animal food ought to be abandoned 
anyway, for it is intolerably wasteful to feed a hog seven pounds of 
good food in the form of corn, in order to get back one pound of 
bad food in the form of bacon. 

The world as a whole is not entitled to much sympathy as yet. 
The real points of anxiety should be that the best families, the best 
nations, and the best races are perpetuated. The great care 
should be that orderly and progressive evolution is not upset by the 
destruction of the superior types and the reproduction only of the 
inferior. 

4, The Birth Control propaganda has been pushed with utter 
disregard for popular psychology. It has been provocative and 
vulgar where it should have been subtle and persuasive. If it had 
been handled differently, success might have been expected before 
this. 

5. The Birth Control propaganda has been backed by no body 
of experimental or statistical evidence to substantiate its claims. 
Its arguments have been a tissue of untruths and misrepresenta- 
tions so glaring as to deceive no one except those who expect re- 
juvenation from goat glands and the Electronic Reactions of 
Abrams. To this the propagandists reply that because of the 
American laws, it is impossible to get any evidence in America. 
They could, however, get it in Europe, if itis to be had. Instead 
of this, they content themselves with generalities and absurd 
claims which no disinterested person can take seriously. Holland 
is the favorite stage setting for these pearls, a familiar one of which 
is the assertion that “‘the average stature of the Dutch has in- 
creased over four inches in 50 years” as a result of the teachings 
of Birth Control. 

In the light of these facts, what should be the attitude of those 
who are interested in the conservation of the family? 

1. The present Birth Control cult should be repudiated by all 
responsible people. 

2. Effective measures should be adopted to make knowledge 
concerning family limitation available to those who want it, 


146 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


through the clinics for marriage and parenthood that I have de- 
scribed elsewhere in this book. Here such scanty scientific in- 
formation as is available concerning contraception could be given, 
together with enlightenment as to the proper place of childbearing 
in family life, and warning against the harmful practices recom- 
mended by the professional Birth Controllers. 

The immediate demand of the latter is for the repeal of the fed- 
eral law which prohibits the circulation of contraceptive informa- 
tion by classing it with the circulation of obscene literature, porno- 
graphic pictures, and instruction in abortion. It has been said— 
with what truth I know not—that the inclusion of contraception 
in this law was inadvertent. . Certainly it does not belong there. 
But this does not mean that the bars should be thrown down, and 
no restraint whatever put on the circulation of such information. 
That would merely invite a commercialization of the subject, 
with each manufacturer and dealer seeking to get as many cus- 
tomers as possible for his own products, regardless of the merit of 
these or the use to be made of them. 

Repeal of the federal law would by no means remove all obstacles 
to the dissemination of information regarding contraceptives, for 
many states also have such laws. The federal law does not hinder 
a physician from giving information in any case where it is needed, 
and the laws of most states do not: where they do, I believe they 
are never enforced. It appears then, however desirable it may be 
to have the legal situation cleared up, that the existing laws do not 
interfere with a reasonable use of contraceptive information. 
They do, however, prevent Uplifters from advertising Birth Con- 
trol clinics of their own. 

The common proposal to put the control of contraceptive in- 
formation in the hands of physicians is open to some objections. 
It might be argued that parenthood is not a disease, and hence 
not primarily the concern of physicians. Practically, moreover, 
it can be argued that the narrow education of physicians does not 
qualify them particularly to deal with the broader phases of family 
limitation. 

On the other hand, the Birth Control advocates declare that free 


EXCESSIVE REPRODUCTION IN INFERIOR FAMILIES 147 


knowledge of contraception is especially necessary for mothers who 
are sick or defective. In such cases a physician would be the 
natural one to consult. 

Beyond this, the danger from the use of many contraceptives 
(inflammation, sterility, and the like) is great enough to make it 
desirable that they should be used by those who understand what 
they are doing. Until there are especially trained biologists avail- 
able, therefore, it seems desirable that contraceptive knowledge 
should be sought from competent gynecologists. But as I have 
remarked above, these should be associated in a clinic with experts 
on heredity and mental hygiene, if family limitation is to be put 
on a scientifically sound and constructive basis. 

The relation of physicians to contraception has one aspect 
that is not without its amusing features. Birth Control propa- 
gandists have insistently harped on the supposed fact that the 
medical profession possesses knowledge of tremendous import, 
which it would give to the public if it were permitted to do so 
by the repeal of the federal law. Many persons have therefore 
gone to physicians to get this mysterious information, and have 
been astonished to be told that the physician knew of nothing 
that answered to the description given by the propagandists. 

The physician was telling the truth, although the client felt 
sure he was lying. There is no contraceptive method that pos- 
sesses the perfection which the propagandists lead one to expect. 
But the propaganda has been so enthusiastic that many physicians 
began seriously to think that there must be some potent and mysti- 
cal knowledge which they had overlooked and which they were 
really supposed to have. The result is that more than 7,000 of 
them have written to a New York Birth Control propagandist, 
earnestly desiring to get this knowledge which they are repre- 
sented to conceal! 

It goes without saying that the medical colleges must deal with 
problems of the conservation of the family in a broader and more 
fundamental way, if their graduates are in the future to play the 
part which they are expected to play, and ought to play, in the 
community. But even with this, the public would be much dis- 


148 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


appointed if it found out how unsatisfactory is all the real knowl- 
edge in existence concerning contraceptives. 

3. But as a prerequisite to any direct action for the wider 
spread of contraceptive information, the general campaign for 
eugenics and social hygiene must be linked up in such a way as 
to give the public a proper perspective. Contraception is not an 
evil in its place, but its place is not isolated. The second great 
disservice which the “sob sisters’ of the Birth Control press 
bureaus have done to family conservation is to isolate contracep- 
tion. It is not the free and universal knowledge of contraception 
that is objectionable. It is the free and universal knowledge of 
nothing but contraception, to which objection must be made vigor- 
ously. Contraception is only a means, though an important and 
necessary one, to intelligent family life under modern conditions. 
(Even Roman Catholics insist on this, although they demand 
that conception be prevented by continence, rather than by inter- 
course “‘with precautions.’’) It is one of the numerous necessary 
and important items in a plan for the conservation of the family 
and the regulation of population. Unfortunately, the devotees 
of the cult can see nothing except contraception. What little lip- 
service they give to the fact that childbearing among superior 
people is both a duty and a privilege, is wholly drowned out by the 
volume of their clamor as to the evils of childbearing among their 
putative clients. It is indeed only recently that the principal 
organs of Birth Control in the United States have, largely at the 
instance of Roswell H. Johnson, made even a perfunctory declara- 
tion in their creeds that they believe in adequate reproduction 
among superior people, as well as in the restraint of excessive re- 
production among inferiors; and even this perfunctory declaration 
is flouted. 

The Sixth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control 
Conference (New York, March, 1925) furnished a good picture of 
the situation that exists. At the final session Professor Johnson, 
seeing that nothing had been done in the course of the previous 
sessions to encourage the birth of superior children, introduced a 
resolution ‘‘that this conference believes that persons whose 


EXCESSIVE REPRODUCTION IN INFERIOR FAMILIES 149 


progeny gives promise of being of decided value to the community 
should be encouraged to bear as large families, properly spaced, 
as they feel they feasibly can.” The resolution was seconded by 
Francis B. Sumner and, after some opposition, was carried. 

This action aroused the indignation of Margaret Sanger (Mrs. 
J. Noah H. Slee), president of the American Birth Control League, 
who devoted the leading editorial in the June, 1925, issue of the 
Birth Control Review to an attack on it. She declared that the 
resolution was presented at a sparsely attended meeting, and would 
probably have been defeated if introduced at a fully attended 
session. It was counter to all the real interests of the Birth Control 
movement, she believed; and after making a confused attack on the 
whole principle of the inheritance of ability, she laid down the law 
that “Birth Control in itself, urging not larger families but smaller 
families by the instrument of qualitative control, offers an instru- 
ment of liberation to overburdened humanity.” 

Professor Johnson’s resolution is still on the minutes of the 
meeting, but it is clear that the present management of the Ameri- 
can Birth Control League will not be enthusiastic in putting it 
into effect. | 

To harp so insistently and exclusively on the virtues of contra- 
ception is harmful in every way. It is—to use an inadequate 
simile—as if a campaign should be started to get people to eat 
more protein. No hint would ever be given that the body needed 
any other nourishment than protein. The merits of protein, 
and the dire plight of those deprived of it, would be exploited with 
all the force of passionate rhetoric: protein, Protein, and more 
protein, free and unlimited access to PROTEIN, would be declared 
to be the only salvation of society. 

A biologist might well point out to such propagandists that while 
protein is a necessary part of the diet, most people eat too much 
protein already, and that protein-starvation is rare. He might 
urge that a general campaign of dietary reform would be more to 
the point: that people should be taught the place of proteins in the 
diet, their relation to the type of activity engaged in by different 
individuals, and so on. ‘To all this the propagandists, if actuated 


150 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


by the same spirit as those for Birth Control, would probably reply 
simply by giving the objector a hard look and shouting at the tops 
of their voices, “PROTEIN!” 

Going back to the defective classes described at the beginning 
of this section, it will not be supposed that a knowledge of contra- 
ceptive methods, if they possessed it, would make much difference 
in their situation. ‘Their recklessness, ignorance, alcoholism, lack 
of self-control, and disregard for the future, are sufficient guaran- 
tees that they will never keep down their own birth-rate effectively. 
If it must be restricted, for their own good or that of society, such 
restriction must be imposed by some force from without. 

The stratum of society on which the Birth Control propagandists 
pin their hopes is that of the ‘‘poor but honest” in the tenements,— 
particularly the recent immigrants. To a marked extent this 
class, too, will prove unable to control its own birth-rate, even if 
provided with the necessary knowledge. While there is much 
good stock in this part of the population, it also contains more than 
its share of inferior stock: for the inefficient, improvident, and dull- 
witted in other classes of society tend to sink to this level, just as a 
stone tends to sink to the bottom of the pond. ‘There are doubtless 
thousands of families characterized by poverty, ignorance, and 
maladjustment, where contraceptive methods should be known and 
applied. In a minority, perhaps even a majority, of cases, some 
good would result from intelligent and effective effort to provide 
these people with the knowledge in question. 

Meanwhile, the widespread preaching of the Birth Control gospel 
in its “official” and one-sided form is heard and heeded mainly 
by those who do not need it. For every one who needs, gets, and 
uses the idea of birth repression there are a dozen who do not need 
it, but who get it and use it. There are thousands of families in 
which neither poverty, ignorance, ill-health, nor maladjustment 
exist, where parents are by tradition, birth, and education fully 
able to bear and rear superior offspring, and where the only obstacle 
to the birth of such offspring is the parents’ feeling that a Ford is 
no longer compatible with their social pretentions, and that they 
must have a six-cylinder sedan next year instead of a baby. For 


EXCESSIVE REPRODUCTION IN INFERIOR FAMILIES 151 


such people, a very different type of education is needed from that 
which is being broadcasted by the priestesses and prophetesses of 
Voluntary Parenthood. The cult has so far done infinitely more 
harm than good. Desirable as it is that the poverty of a few 
individual cases (doubtfully blamed on a few helpless babies) be 
relieved, it is more important that human welfare be safeguarded 
by the conservation of the family, and the birth and growth of 
healthy, happy, useful children, in homes that possess the necessary 
qualifications for producing such children. If the words ‘‘birth 
control”’ have any rational meaning, they must refer to a control 
that works both ways. ‘Traffic on Fifth Avenue would make little 
advance if the system of police control invariably stopped moving 
vehicles but never started them. Similarly, birth control, if it 
must stop some births, must start others. And from a racial point 
of view, the latter function is much more important than the 
former. 

To sum up: The practice of contraception is regarded by most 
biologists as an inevitable part of modern married life. The fact 
is scarcely open to discussion. The knowledge exists, it is wide- 
spread, and no sane person will suppose for a moment that the 
bulk of mankind can be prevented from making use of it! even if 
such prevention were desirable—which, on the whole, it is not. 
But the knowledge must be used rightly. One of the greatest 
obstacles to the right use and understanding of contraception is the 
Birth Control propaganda that has been poured forth in the United 
States during the last decade or two. 

It is necessary, however, to go farther, and to point out that the 
general adoption of the “‘small family plan” is not from any point 
of view an unmixed blessing. 

1. There is not yet known any wholly satisfactory means of 
contraception. Many of the methods most widely praised, es- 
pecially by Birth Control propagandists, are inefficient. Robert 
L. Dickinson’s investigation of this point simply proves what every 


1 Connecticut, however, has a law which makes it a misdemeanor to use a 
contraceptive. A record of the arrests and convictions under this statue 
would be instructive. 


152 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


experienced married person already knew. Many of the methods 
are harmful, permanent sterility being a particularly unfortunate 
result in some cases. Most if not all methods are esthetically 
repugnant, in greater or less degree, to sensitive persons. Years of 
research will be required before contraception is in one-tenth as 
satisfactory a position, scientifically, as Birth Control propagan- 
dists would have it appear to be now. 

2. The dissemination of knowledge concerning contraception 
tends to increase sexual promiscuity. I believe that no one who 
is acquainted with the underworld denies this. Even the Birth 
Control propagandists admit it, implicitly or explicitly. If the 
thought is objectionable to them, they usually take refuge in the 
stereotyped plea that the chastity of womankind can be of little 
value if it depends solely on the fear of pregnancy. 

3. Any and all methods of family limitation, however advantage- 
ous to the individual, work a certain and probably a serious detri- 
ment to the race. This may be made clear if it is put in diagram- 
matic form. In days when there was little control of conception, 
weak, infertile, and feeble families produced, say, one child. 
Strong, fertile, long-lived parents produced, say, 10 children. If 
the weak families were as numerous as the strong ones (of course, 
they really were not), yet in the following generation strong chil- 
dren would outnumber weak children 10 to 1. 

But with a universal family limitation, which held nearly all 
families down to two or three children, it is clear that under the 
same imaginary conditions the succeeding generation would see 
the strong children outnumber the weak not 10 to 1, but only two 
or three to one. In the course of a few more generations, the 
proportion of weak children in the community would increase 
notably, and the average vitality of the whole population would be 
pulled down correspondingly. 

Whatever the exact proportions may be, this is in principle 
precisely what is now happening. The level of inborn vigor of the 
race is falling in each generation, because almost as many children 
are born in weak stocks as would have been born formerly, while 
fewer children are born in strong stocks than was formerly the 
case. 


EXCESSIVE REPRODUCTION IN INFERIOR FAMILIES 153 


4, General practice of family limitation will lead to an increase 
in the proportion of males in the population, since boy babies pre- 
dominate among the first-born, and to a less extent in the second 
or third born. The average equality of the two sexes is made up 
by the later-born children; but if these are not born at all, there 
will be an excess of boys. This may or may not be a desirable 
change. 

5. Finally there is a great danger, during the transition period, 
in a rapid spread of birth control, for it results in a population made 
up of elderly people with a minimum of the young. Such a popu- 
lation is not progressive,—it tends rather to be reactionary. It 
tends to contain a disproportionate number of neurotic and arterio- 
sclerotic introverts, suffering from balked dispositions and con- 
stantly seeking relief from these in some outbreak or other. 

All these are not arguments for unregulated childbirth. They 
are simply facts. 





2M ae oh t 
ri. a | 


Me 
Nee 
Va is 





















AL Bay arate! uy ¥ Ba te! 


MS iM nv 14h Hy 





Ne his 


or a taal 






PART ITI 
MEANS OF SOCIAL CONTROL 





INTRODUCTION 


The question of the extent to which, and the manner in which, 
society should by direct or indirect compulsion limit the freedom 
of the individual is one that has been discussed since the beginning 
of civilization. There is yet no near approach to a consensus, 
among the most conscientious students of the subject. Certainly 
I shall not presume, in a few pages of a biological sketch, to settle 
the problems involved. 

Nevertheless, some sort of working hypothesis on this subject 
is indispensable in any rational discussion of such a question as the 
conservation of the family. I can not therefore, even if I would, 
avoid entering on this hotly-contested field. Without attempting 
any far-reaching examination of an interminable and, as I think, 
insoluble problem, I shall call attention to a few simple principles 
that seem to me to furnish the best guidance available in this 
wilderness. 

As a starting point it has been agreed, by all except out-and-out 
pessimists, that the survival of any given group or nation is desir- 
able, at least to the members of the group, and that customs which 
tend to bring about the extinction of the group are to be repressed. 
The group must not only survive but, as it can not stand still 
and does not want to go backward, it must progress. To this 
end it must be made up of healthy, happy, useful, reproductive 
people. On a large scale, the interests of the individual and of the 
group coincide. 

In detail, men and women are always wanting to do things that 
are not for the interests of the group. It is generally admitted 
that the state has the right and duty to repress any action that 
tends to weaken or destroy it. The problem is to determine 
which are the acts that affect only the individual, which those 
that affect others and are therefore proper subject for interference 
from others, if the effect on them is undesirable. It is about this 
point that the smoke of controversy is densest. 

157 


158 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


The whole trend of science during the last century has been 
toward demonstrating that actions which affect no one except the 
individual who does them are fewer than was thought—if indeed 
there be any such actions. No one lives to himself alone, and what 
appears to be the most personal and intimate performance has 
often been found, on analysis, to be far-reaching in its consequences. 
To take a stock illustration, nothing could apparently be more 
personal than failure to brush one’s teeth; yet if the man who 
abjures oral hygiene thereby loses some of his molars, gets a focal 
infection which leads to chronic rheumatism, renders himself unfit 
for military service when his country is invaded, becomes unable 
to work and support his family, and sees his children die from lack 
of means to care for them, it is evident that his hostility to the 
tooth-brush was, in fact, of much more serious consequence to 
others than to himself. 

Scientifically, then, a large part of John Stuart Mill’s acute 
reasoning is as much out of date as the bow and arrow. The 
action that seems most innocent may involve the welfare of an 
entire nation. The tourist returning from Honolulu who brings 
in his baggage a few tropical fruits to please his children at home 
may thereby introduce to California the Mediterranean fruit fly, 
which will decimate the orchards of the state and levy a toll of a 
hundred million dollars a year on the American people. Freedom 
of action, in any general sense, does not exist. 

How is it with freedom of opinion? This question has been 
even more hotly debated, if possible, than that of freedom of action. 
It seems plausible that, if a man must guard his actions, he may 
at least be permitted to think what he pleases, and there are many 
who hold any other point of view to be monstrous. On the other 
hand, there have been notable examples of the tendency of society 
to object to freedom of thought as well as freedom of action. 
Greece put Socrates to death, the Hebrews, with the approval of 
the Romans, crucified Jesus, the Papacy brought Galileo to his 
knees in short order. Few would now argue that any one of these 
actions was right; but such cases as the imprisonment of con- 
scientious objectors and advocates of communism are nearer at 


INTRODUCTION 159 


hand and there is yet no general agreement as to how such persons 
should be dealt with. 

Here again, however, the progress of psychology is gradually 
clearing up the situation. It is well recognized that most beliefs 
do influence action. The man who, walking through a graveyard 
at midnight, sees a dim white object approaching him, will react 
differently according to whether he does or does not believe in 
ghosts. Even if a man kept his beliefs to himself, and never 
divulged them to anyone else, they would be certain to influence 
his own actions, and thereby be of importance to his fellow-men; 
while if, as is almost invariably the case, he does communicate 
his beliefs to others, the actions of others are in turn influenced. 
It might be said that beliefs likely to result in desirable actions are 
approvable, while beliefs likely to result in harmful actions must 
be looked upon with disfavor by society. But, as has already 
been pointed out, almost every action reaches much farther than its 
perpetrator suspects. Therefore there is no escape from the con- 
clusion that every belief as well as every action of an individual is 
of importance to society as a whole, and a proper subject for scru- 
tiny with a view to the protection of society. 

Stated thus baldly, this sounds like the doctrine of the Inquisi- 
tion; yet in fact it is everywhere acted upon in daily life. The 
day of individualism is past. If anything deserves to be damned 
by the application of the apparently deadly epithet, ‘‘mid-Victor- 
ian,” individualism does. No man is now allowed to maintain an 
open cesspool in his back-yard. It is of no use for him to assert 
that it is artistic, that the luxuriant vegetation growing around 
the edges furnishes the kind of beauty needed in this prosaic 
world, that those are Philistines who can not appreciate the 
iridescent reflection of the surrounding tenements, on its still 
surface, or the marvelous algae which fringe its edges, and which 
seen through a microscope reveal a whole new world of unimagined 
sublimity. Anyone who would talk thus would be silenced quickly 
by his neighbors and by the board of health. 

It is still the custom in some circles of the intelligentsia to talk 
in the same strain about books that are psychologically what the 


160 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


open cesspool is physically; but the day when this sort of talk will 
be taken seriously, even among the literati, is passing rapidly. 

Censorship, indeed, is in much the same position as birth control. 
It is universally admitted to be necessary. The only question is, 
how is it to be done? Some would prevent births by continence, 
others by abortion, some would censor ‘“‘Art”’ by public opinion, 
others by fig leaves. But both parties, while attempting to anni- 
hilate each other, are actually in full accord on the original princi- 
ples involved. As the developments of psychology have revealed 
with startling clearness the unsuspected extent to which character 
is influenced by surroundings, by “contagion,” by emotional 
states which have long been forgotten, it has become more and more 
obvious that mental sanitation and hygiene are just as important 
and legitimate functions of the state as are physical sanitation and 
hygiene. 

In all ages there have been offenders against the accepted code. 
There always will be. It is only a decadent civilization that gives 
them freedom of action. Any strong and progressive civilization 
must and will fight incessantly to protect itself. Any wise man will 
recognize that a continual fight is necessary in the nature of things. 
As public assent is gained in support of one principle, research 
will already have enunciated a new one, for the adoption of which 
a new fight must be started at once. It would be delightful if a 
population could be found that would at once recognize the validity 
of any newly-discovered truth, and act upon it; but there has 
never been such a population. 

The questions really open are (1) how are standards of judgment 
to be established and (2) how are they to be enforced? In the 
past, standards of judgment have been fixed largely by tradition, 
prejudice, and often deliberate incitement of bigotry; they have 
been enforced with a sledge hammer, a bonfire, or a guillotine. 
In both cases the procedure is inadequate. 

1. Since standards of judgment are based on the decision whether 
a given action is or is not favorable to the progress of the race, 
it is evident that they should be formed after scientific investiga- 
tion, which will determine by experimental or statistical inquiry, 


INTRODUCTION 161 


just what the effects of the action in question are likely to be.! 
It is not to be supposed that such a decision can always be made 
easily, nor that it can be made at all, in every case. Yet this ideal 
is being more nearly reached every year. 

Within the memory of every adult now living, it was almost 
universally supposed that the establishment of a Red Light Dis- 
trict offered the best means to minify the evils of prostitution and 
to control the spread of venereal diseases. As a result of some 
20 years of painstaking investigation, it is now proved to the satis- 
faction of everyone who knows anything at all about it, that such 
a means is the worst, rather than the best, possible to gain the ends 
in view. It is not rash to predict that no reader of this book will 
live to see the establishment of segregated districts advocated by 
any intelligent body of public opinion in the United States. Here 
is a case where the old standards set by ignorance, tradition, and 
self-interest have been superseded by those set by scientific re- 
search. Innumerable others of the same sort will occur to every 
reader. 

What of the cases in which there is not yet enough evidence 
for a decision? Clearly it is the duty of the state (a) to use every 
effort to get evidence, by subsidizing research; (b) to go slowly, 
meanwhile, in encouraging or allowing changes in existing customs. 
Human customs ordinarily represent a means of adjustment of 
mankind to its civilization; there was a reason for their coming 
into existence. As societies change, customs have to change: 
so that theoretically and broadly it may be said that no custom is 
ever exactly right, but that none is wholly wrong and purposeless. 
On the average, more trouble will probably ensue from giving up 
old customs before they have been definitely shown to be wrong, 


1 This proposition was stated by Francis Bacon (de Augmentis 7, 3) with his 
usual clearness. Moral philosophers, he said, ought to set themselves vigor- 
ously to work for the purpose of discovering what are the actual effects produced 
on human character by particular modes of education, by the indulgence of 
particular habits, by the study of particular books, by society, by emulation, by 
imitation. Then we might hope to find out what mode of training was most 
likely to preserve and restore moral health. 


162 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


than by holding to them until they are so shown. But when once 
the proof is available, all the weight of the state should be thrown 
toward changing them, regardless of vested interests which usually 
try to maintain any status quo, no matter what it is. 

The only people likely to dissent from this analysis of the situa- 
tion are those who think that social problems can be settled defi- 
nitely and correctly. Such an attitude, which is unfortunately 
widespread, is wholly erroneous. Human nature is so complicated 
and contradictory, civilization is such a patchwork and jumble, 
that to anyone who looks at it soberly, it is inconceivable that any 
ideal condition can ever be reached, in the adjustment of civiliza- 
tion to mankind. The best that can be hoped for—and even this 
will not often be attained,—is a more or less rough approximation, 
in which the gains will outweigh the losses. But to expect that, 
outside of the New Jerusalem, there will ever come a time when, 
for instance, all wealth will be distributed precisely in proportion 
to what people deserve, or the best men will be elected to all offices, 
or all laborers will take joy in their creative work, or all children 
will be properly trained by their parents, or all husbands and wives 
will love each other—to expect, in short, that a wholly satisfactory 
situation will ever be found, is to expect sheer impossibility. All 
that the most sanguine can demand is that affairs will go at least 
a little better, and that such changes as are made shall be in some- 
thing like the right direction, if not on precisely the path that is 
later found to have been straightest. 

In short, society is justified in controlling in any way necessary 
for its own preservation, the actions—and even the beliefs— 
ofitsmembers. Standards should be set by free and sympathetic- 
ally-protected scientific research. The current standard should 
be the consensus of the most skilled students in the field, at any 
given time. 

Such a procedure is in line with evolution, because it replaces the 
hit or miss methods of the past with intelligence. Hitherto, man- 
kind has proceeded largely through experimenting at random 
(‘‘trialand error’). Those who went wrong died or left no descend- 
ants; those who went right survived and perpetuated the species. 


INTRODUCTION 163 


Such, in extremely broad outline, has been the process followed 
alike by man, bird, fish, earthworm, and ameba. 

Such crude methods are no longer necessary, if mankind will use 
what little reasonit has. It can study the consequences of actions; 
it can control actions; it can therefore direct its progress with some 
intelligence. 

In the light of these facts, one can appraise the claims of those 
who cry that monogamy is out of date, and that free experiment in 
sexual relations must be encouraged, in order that an arrangement 
better suited to human nature may be discovered. While they 
consider themselves the last word in progressiveness, they are in 
fact returning to the Stone Age. There has been plenty of experi- 
mentation already; mankind has done little else in its entire history. 
Whole races, nations, and civilizations have perished because their 
experiments were made on a wrong hypothesis. The records of 
many of these experiments are available in history, and modern 
men and women can profit by them. They all point to one road— 
monogamy—as the road along which evolutionary progress is to be 
made. ‘The others are known to be beset with danger. What is 
needed now is not fresh experiments, but the application of intelli- 
gence to make the best use of the road that is known to be open— 
to broaden it, clear it of obstacles, and keep traffic moving down it 
most expeditiously. 

2. The means by which action may be made to conform to the 
accepted standards are innumerable, and have formed the subject 
of some detailed and highly interesting treatises in recent years. 
Here it will be sufficient to sketch only the broad outlines of the 
picture, since it is the purpose of the succeeding sections of this 
Part to fill in the details. To get conformity to the standards 
which investigation has shown to be most desirable, society should: 

(a) Make conformity possible, by removing obstacles (economic, 
for example). 

(b) Make conformity attractive, by education, economic condi- 
tions, public opinion, and the like. 

(c) Make all alternatives unattractive or unattainable. 

(d) Punish excessive or conspicuous failures to conform; and in 


164. THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


particular, stamp out all commercialized efforts to balk conformity 
or to exploit non-conformity for gain. 

These are put in the order of their importance. Unfortunately, 
there is a common tendency to reverse the order. 

To say that a community can not guide both the actions and the 
thoughts of its members is not at all in accord with facts. To the 
parrot phrase, ‘““You can’t change human nature,” one might with 
equal truth retort that human nature never does anything except 
change. Every community is continually molding the thoughts 
and actions of its members, for good or ill, in every conceivable 
direction. Prussia made its peculiar official ideals seem attractive 
not only to its own citizens but to most of the other Germans, for 
half a century or more. In war time every state makes its aims 
seem good to its own citizens—widespread examples of this are 
part of recent history. Any organized effort can make social aims 
much more attractive than anti-social aims, because they are more 
nearly in accord with that mysterious and elusive thing,—human 
nature. 


I. EDUCATION 


Education for family life not only begins with the infant in the 
home, but this phase is more important than any other, for the 
emotional attitude toward sex and parenthood, which the child 
adopts before he is five years old, largely determines his attitude 
toward them in all of his later years. 

The primary factor in education is therefore the example of the 
child’s own parents. 

Next to this comes their definite instruction of him. At the 
age of two or three, the child begins to ask questions bearing on sex. 
Normally, he would continue to ask them for the rest of his life. 
But if, as is usually the case, he is put off with evasions and lies, or 
is reprimanded for inquiring about such a subject, he finds that 
nothing is to be gained from that line of investigation. Then in 
place of dismissing the questions largely from his mind, as the result 
of having received satisfactory information about them, he broods 
over them, seeks information from worse sources, and acquires a 
set of complexes. 

No parent can waive responsibility in this matter. The duty of 
educating the child belongs to the parent and to no one else. 

Much discussion has been wasted on the question whether it is 
the duty of the father or the mother. Manifestly it is the duty of 
both. Whichever one is asked a question must answer it simply 
and truthfully. It happens that this is most likely to be the 
mother, merely because she is with the children during more hours 
of the day than is the father. 

Many parents shirk their duty by telling the child that he is 
“too young to understand,’ and inwardly (though falsely) resolv- 
ing that before the child reaches puberty he shall be given the 
necessary information. 

If it is delayed until the child reaches adolescence, the duty is 
found by most parents to be difficult—so much so that in the great 

165 


166 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


majority of cases it is shirked forever. Meanwhile the child has, 
in 99 cases out of a hundred, already picked up a miscellaneous 
collection of misinformation, much of it of the most harmful 
character. 

Clearly, the parent should so instruct his child in this particular, 
that nothing will ever have to be unlearned. Frank and accurate, 
though simple, answers should be given to the first questions. The 
parent who lies to his own child, by palming off such ancient and 
vicious fables as ‘‘the silver spade,” ‘“‘the stork,” ‘‘the doctor’s 
satchel; or who takes refuge in the pious evasion that babies 
come from heaven, has betrayed his child’s confidence. 

If the child is told early enough, it will be no more embarrassing 
to tell him the truth, than to lie to him. 


WHY PARENTS FAIL 


When the matter, presented in this way, sounds so simple, 
why do an overwhelming majority of parents shirk their duty, 
and take refuge in evasions or lies? Some, of course, are not 
convinced of the desirability of sex education; others are merely 
lazy or indifferent, or not intelligent enough to think of the matter 
at all. Those who believe that their children ought to be educated 
properly, but do not educate them, are held back mainly by three 
reasons: 

1. Their own mental attitude toward sex is so confused and un- 
sound, if not perverted, that it can not be communicated to a child. 

2. They do not begin early enough. 

3. They have not a suitable vocabulary. Many parents, for 
instance, know no other names to describe reproduction and the 
reproductive organs, than the popular terms, of more or less ill- 
repute, that pass on from generation to generation among the 
ignorant. These terms have connotations and associations that 
are rightly regarded as objectionable. ‘There isa scientific vocab- 
ulary which is free from objections. It should be used consist- 
ently from the first, to the exclusion of any other. 

It is not necessary to tell the children much, but it is necessary 
to tell them early. It is not to be supposed that they will under- 


EDUCATION 167 


stand everything they are told; but if it is evident to them that 
nothing is being concealed, they will attach little importance to the 
subject. The child’s mind is not morbidly or pruriently concerned 
with sex—at least, not until after the parents make it so. 

In this connection there is a school of pedagogy which would 
smother the facts with sentiment. If the child asks where its little 
sister came from, the mother is advised to defer the conversation 
until a propitious moment about twilight, when the lamps are 
dimmed, and when, to the accompaniment of soft music, she will 
take the child into her arms and explain, in a voice hushed yet 
vibrant with emotion, how little sister was cared for.in a warm, 
soft nest under mother’s heart; how mother hoped and prayed 
during the long, long months of waiting; how mother suffered in 
bringing her child into the world; how she loves her correspond- 
ingly; and so on. 

Much of this is untrue, most of itis unwise. Little sister did not 
develop in a nest under mother’s heart, but in mother’s lower abdo- 
men. When the child later discovers this fact for himself, he will 
wonder why his mother lied to him so unnecessarily, and what there 
is about the lower abdomen to make it so indecent that the womb 
must be moved out of it up to the position normally occupied by the 
stomach. Moreover, the sentimental emphasis in this sort of 
pedagogy is likely to be altogether too effective, and to play an 
important part in forming mother complexes, from which the child 
may suffer greatly in future years. In direct conversation, plain, 
simple facts are called for. The sentiment can be instilled better 
by illustration, in the parents’ own attitude toward each other 
and toward their children, as expressed silently in every day life. 

A new pregnancy in the family offers an excellent opportunity 
for the children to learn not only about the development of a new 
baby, but of the proper attitude toward a pregnant woman. 

By the time the child starts to school he should have as much 
actual information as will be called out by his own questions— 
the extent of these of course varies greatly with different children — 
and, much more important, he should have acquired sound emo- 
tional attitudes toward everything connected with family life, 


168 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


in so far as it has come under his observation. Parents who are 
either prudish or vulgar in their relations with each other‘can hardly 
expect their children to grow up without being either prudish or 
vulgar. 

A reasonable amount of dressing, bathing, and romping together 
of the members of the family is an excellent way to develop a nat- 
ural and wholesome outlook on the human body; but understand- 
ing of the physical differences should be included gradually with the 
broader differences between the sexes of temperament, dress, divi- 
sion of labor, and relations to the child himself. 

On the other hand, parents must be extremely careful about 
letting children, even infants, see the more intimate phases of 
married life. Such revelations make an impression at a much 
earlier age than the parents realize; and the impression thus gained 
is premature. 

Reticence concerning family matters, in the presence of out- 
siders, should be cultivated to include sexual matters along with 
others that are private affairs of the particular family. 

Physical hygiene must be watched carefully but unostentatiously, 
particularly as regards care of the genitalia. Good habits should 
be formed, bad ones avoided or broken promptly. Ceaseless vigi- 
lance is required to protect the child from contamination by ill- 
educated playmates, or by older persons, especially domestic 
servants. 

Even at this age, parents may begin to emphasize the ideas of 
heredity and parenthood, in connection with sex. These lines 
of thought are scientifically the soundest, and personally the most 
useful in giving children a right attitude toward reproduction. 


EDUCATION DURING SCHOOL YEARS 


During school years, this type of education should be continued 
in the home, and should be re-enforced by nature study, and by 
the teacher’s attitude, in the school. The latter is often unfavor- 
able at present, under the system that places most primary pupils 
in the hands of inexperienced girls whose own attitude toward 
family life is either not developed or is developed in wrong direc- 


EDUCATION 169 


tions. It would be worth while trying the experiment of placing 
education in the hands of mature married women, whose children 
have grown up. Such women usually have leisure, which they are 
either unable to occupy, or else occupy in unprofitable ways. 
Many of them would welcome an opportunity to do some useful 
and remunerative work. Their influence on the children, as re- 
gards preparation for family life, could scarcely be worse than that 
of the callow normal school graduates who hold the ground at 
present. On the average, it would probably be much better. 
Anyone above the mental age of eight or nine years may be able to 
teach children the multiplication table, but how to produce good 
character in children is not to be learnt merely by passing the final 
examinations of a normal school course in child psychology. It is 
to be learnt by living, and by bringing up a family of children. 

This point of view is opposed sometimes. Thus M. A. Bigelow 
writes: “The greatest medical teachers have not had the diseases 
they describe so clearly. The best elementary teachers and special- 
ists on the care of children are not always mothers; on the con- 
trary some of these are men. ‘The fact is that these teachers have 
learned, not from personal experience, but from the great accumu- 
lation of scientific knowledge of medicine, hygiene, and education. 
There is an abundance of such knowledge relating to sex that may 
be clearly understood by bright women who have no bi-personal 
knowledge of sex. Therefore I believe that it is nonsense to insist 
that only women with complete sexual experiences can be efficient 
guides for other women.” 

Dr. Bigelow’s idea is perhaps valid in a limited field of specializa- 
tion, as anatomy or physiology, and it may be that he intended to 
apply it only in such a field. It seems to me inapplicable to more 
elementary teaching—and it is the latter that is of greatest im- 
portance. The teacher’s own mental attitude toward her subject 
is of little concern in a discussion of, say, typhoid fever. Abun- 
dant observation shows, on the other hand, that it is of great 
concern in a discussion of sexual intercourse or of parenthood; and 
Dr. Bigelow himself makes this abundantly clear in other connec- 
tions. The same restricted outlook, the same lack of compre- 


170 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


hension and balance, that have been charged against monastic 
celibates, too often characterize the pedagogical celibate. Even 
for those who have taken no vows of life-long celibacy, “the outlook 
on existence is necessarily one-sided, and is especially curtailed in 
the direction of family life and the domestic circle, subjects on 
which right thinking and personal experience are of supreme im- 
portance in the national welfare.’’ Whatever exceptions may be 
found, I believe that on the average the normal, experienced mother 
(or father) will be likely to have a more wholesome point of view 
than the inexperienced bachelor maid; and I agree with the W. C. D. 
Whethams that in this case “‘the personality of the teacher and 
the manner in which the subject is presented are of far greater 
importance than the actual substance of the information im- 
parted.” 

It is generally recognized that the school can not possibly take 
the place of the parents in sex education. This is partly because 
the school does not get the children early enough; more largely 
because of sound psychological reasons why this teaching should 
begin in the home. But to a small extent, at least, it is also due 
to the inexperience of many teachers, the superficiality of their 
training, and the lack of intimate contact with the pupils. While 
these hindrances can not be removed altogether, it seems likely 
that a mature woman who had brought up her own children success- 
fully, gaining their confidence and answering their questions, would 
be much more likely to be of assistance to her pupils, if they came 
to her with their difficulties, than would be the self-conscious young 
girl, just out of college, who is still trying to resolve her own difficul- 
ties and get answers to her own questions. 

Nature study in the schools is of course to be looked upon merely 
as a supplement to education in the home, and not in any way as 
a substitute for it. The idea of introducing a child to the problem 
of reproduction by means of pollination in flowers seems to me 
highly questionable as an introduction, although it makes a good 
follow-up. As an introduction, it is open to the great danger that 
the child will not transfer the knowledge from botany to mankind. 

In even the smallest home there is an opportunity for children 


EDUCATION 171 


to keep a few pets,—mice, rats, guinea-pigs, and rabbits being 
particularly suitable. From the breeding of these the child can 
learn naturally enough the detail which embarrasses the parent 
most to explain—that is, the dependence of reproduction on coitus. 
Country children usually get this information from watching barn- 
yard animals. The child’s almost inevitable inquiry, whether 
human beings reproduce in the same way, should be answered 
simply and casually in the affirmative. 

It is often objected that such a procedure tends to put reproduc- 
tion on a purely physical plane, in the child’s mind; whereas, in 
fact, this aspect needs less emphasis than any other, reproduction 
in mankind being predominantly mental and spiritual in its feeling- 
tones, in spite of the inescapable physical foundation. 

All this is true enough, but largely immaterial, for the child 
must learn some time of the fact of coitus, and if he learns it in this 
early and natural way, it will be much less troublesome than to 
learn it later in life. The number of girls who do not get this fact 
until long after puberty, and who suffer for years from the fear 
that they may become pregnant merely through a kiss or an em- 
brace, is astounding. It is the parents’ part to see that the child’s 
education does not stop short with mere knowledge of copulation, 
but that this is relegated to its proper place through observation 
in his own home of the psychical side of love. While the latter 
must be emphasized incessantly, the physical side is a fact which 
can not be ignored without disastrous results, and if the parents 
close their eyes to this, the children will not. 

From start to finish, it ought not to be necessary to say that the 
child must be trained in self-mastery. Unfortunately, flabby wills 
are not so often made the subject of training as are flabby muscles, 
although they are almost equally capable of development, in 
normal girls and boys. 

By the time they are 10 years old—therefore still in the primary 
grades—most boys and many girls have already learned something 
about coitus, prostitution, and venereal diseases. Usually what 
they have learned from older or vicious associates is incorrect and 
harmful; but they have learned something. If the parents have 


172 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


not anticipated this by conveying at least a minimum of accurate 
information on the same subjects, so much the worse for all con- 
cerned. If, however, an attitude of complete confidence exists 
between parent and child (and normally there is nothing to break 
such an attitude until the time of adolescence, several years after 
the age mentioned) there should be no difficulty in giving both 
sexes an inkling of the facts. It is idle to suppose that they will 
remain ignorant. If they are not given any sound information, 
they are simply left at the mercy of worse-educated comrades, 
chance hearsay, and the commemorative inscriptions on the walls 
of public toilets. Most parents, with the attitude which is im- 
puted—incorrectly—to the ostrich, argue that their children could 
not possibly know of “‘such evil things” at such a tender age; when 
in fact it has been proved again and again that the child knew 
as much as the parents. 

The moral is that education must be continuous (although only 
occasional); that the child must always receive a little correct in- 
formation in the home before he receives a lot of incorrect informa- 
tion outside. Both parents have still their part to play; the 
subject should be brought up in talks with either one, and on 
appropriate occasions, when it comes up naturally, it should be dis- 
cussed by parents and child together. In such talks it is as impor- 
tant for parents to avoid an attitude of superstitious timidity, as 
one of flippant cynicism. 


THE PRE-ADOLESCENT PERIOD 


Before puberty, it is essential that boys be prepared to under- 
stand in part the normal development that they will undergo. 
If they do not, much harm may be done through worry or, in the 
case of extremely religious boys (and religious feeling is frequently 
one of the marked characteristics of this age), through a sense of 
guilt or sin. 

In addition to recognizing that change of voice, growth of addi- 
tional hair, and other physical manifestations are due to invisible 
internal secretions (from the testicles), the boy should be led to 


EDUCATION 173 


expect, and to regard as perfectly natural, three manifestations 
that may confuse him if he is not instructed: 

1. He should learn that seminal emissions are a healthful, not a 
harmful, experience, and that they are not a cause for embarrass- 
ment or shame, much less for fear. 

2. He should learn to expect erotic dreams from time to time, and 
to take them as a matter of course. ‘These sometimes cause re- 
morse and mental anguish to religious-minded boys who have in- 
sensibly absorbed the common idea that sex is indecent and sinful. 

3. He should learn that erections are likewise merely an evidence 
of his development, and of the preparation of his body for the part 
he is destined to play when he is mature, asafather. There should 
be no guilty feeling about them, nor, of course, any spirit of fa- 
cetiousness. ‘They will occur mainly when he awakes in the morn- 
ing; when he is dancing or otherwise in contact with girls; and when 
he is engaged in such exercise as riding a horse or bicycle. 

It is inevitable that novel and striking personal experiences 
like the three just mentioned should make a strong impression on 
the boy’s mind. It is therefore necessary, for the sake of whole- 
some mental development, that this impression be turned to good 
account by the parent, in making the boy feel his preparation for 
adult life. There is no reason why he should not view such phe- 
nomena with lively interest, but he should be encouraged to have 
an objective attitude, and not to regard them as important save as 
indications of growth. 

Girls should be instructed fully regarding menstruation, learning 
that it is merely a discharge of superfluous blood which had been 
prepared for the nourishment of an egg-cell, and which was not 
needed because the egg-cell was not fertilized and therefore could 
not develop. Full instructions should be given for the hygiene of 
this period, but it should be regarded as a normal condition, not 
as a sickness or a curse. Boys should also have some correct ideas 
about menstruation, to discount the vulgar and superstitious ones 
with which they will come in contact, and to form the basis for 
future tact and understanding in their attitude toward menstru- 
ating women. Both boys and girls will have gained correct ideas 


174 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


of the anatomy of the sexes by observation in the home, supple- 
mented by answers to inquiries concerning facts that are not self- 
evident. 


IN HIGH SCHOOL 


The same type of education in the home should continue through- 
out the high school period. It is not at all a question of whether 
or not one thinks that a child of this age ought to know of such 
things as prostitution and venereal diseases. ‘The fact is that he 
does know of them—that, unless immured, he can not be prevented 
from knowing of them; and it is of the greatest consequence that 
his knowledge be accurate, -sensible, and in proper perspective, 
rather than fragmentary, perverted, and sensational. 

Mothercraft can be taught in high schools and preparatory 
schools. It is being taught in a few, with excellent results. While 
it can thus reach no more than three or four girls in ten (since the 
others leave school at the end of the eighth grade, or sooner) these 
are in some ways the pick of the whole population, and efforts 
to educate them are therefore more worth while than would be 
efforts with any other fraction. Girls at this period may well 
have the care of a real baby, and there are thousands of healthy 
babies in unfit homes who would benefit greatly from daily mother- 
ing by a class of eager high school students. But some schools 
which advertise instruction in home-making as a specialty, teach 
girls only by letting them dress and undress a large doll. Such 
methods argue a complete atrophy of the sense of humor. 

Since only two or three in a hundred go beyond high school, 
this is the last period at which the public educational system has 
any opportunity to exert a wide influence, and it is especially desir- 
able that preparation for family life be largely completed before 
the end of this period. Many high schools now have lecture courses 
of one kind oranother. Some of these are conspicuously successful, 
others just as conspicuous failures, depending at present almost 
wholly on the personality of the teacher in charge. 

I remember when lectures on ‘“‘sex,”’ by a local physician, were 
introduced at the high school in my own city, not so many years 


EDUCATION 175 


ago. The boys were notified that they were to meet in the assem- 
bly hall at a given hour. Most of them entered it in apprehension, 
while the girls walked by hastily and silently, as a child does 
before a house placarded for smallpox. Before the period was 
half over, the rout began, as stragglers with white faces emerged 
hurriedly from the hall and made for the open air. Two or three 
who did not start quickly enough fainted on the spot and had to be 
carried out by the survivors seated near them. One youth, who 
happened to be sitting in a window sill, fell backward and broke a 
pane of glass, which cut him around the head; he was carried out 
bleeding, while little groups of girls watched furtively around the 
corners and doubtless supposed that all this was a normal part of 
instruction in sex. 

All this perhaps sounds ludicrous, but it was a tragedy; and 
I am telling it merely because it illustrates a kind of sex education 
that is still too frequent. Parents who let their children grow up 
in ignorance or worse, and then depend on a few 40-minute lectures 
in high school, given by a local physician, to undo the harm of 10 
years and furnish guidance for a lifetime, are more than stupid. 
Yet in one form or another, this is the course adopted by many 
parents, and one that has even been advocated by a few educators. 
‘“‘Keep the child ‘innocent’ until he reaches adolescence, then let 
the family physician or clergyman have a confidential talk with 
him and give him the instruction he needs to avoid the snares and 
pitfalls of life.” 


THE DOCTOR’S PART 


I can imagine few classes of men worse equipped to fulfill this 
function than the clergymen, unless it be the doctors. As the 
latter have so often been made responsible, by cowardly or ignorant 
parents, for a duty that does not belong to them, it is worth while 
to inquire for a moment whether they are really qualified for such 
a tremendous responsibility. I believe it will be clear that, merely 
as doctors, they are not well equipped, either mentally or morally, 
to take the lead in social hygiene. 

Mentally, the profession is made up of men of rather mediocre 


176 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


intelligence,—a fact strikingly brought out by the army mental 
tests, and published by Robert M. Yerkes. Intellectually the 
medical officers were at the bottom of the list, inferior to all others 
in the army. Moreover, the education imposed on this native 
equipment does not fit them for the task in hand. Few of them 
have a really good grounding in biology, in a broad sense, much 
less any special knowledge, accompanied by a suitable point of view, 
on social hygiene. What has the profession as a whole done to 
cut down the spread of venereal diseases, stop prostitution, or 
eliminate abortions? In many cases, the greatest obstacle to 
progress has been the stubborn and sometimes self-interested 
opposition of the rank and file of the medical profession. In social 
hygiene, most of its members are far behind the times. I do not 
necessarily argue that they are inferior to the average of the popu- 
lation—only that they are not much, if any, above it. 

Morally the situation is the same. Students in medical colleges 
are not particularly noted for social outlook and high personal 
standards, especially as concerns sex—not to mention the use of 
tobacco, alcohol, narcotic drugs, and other unbiological forms of 
activity. Professionally, they are as a class anti-social; they are 
primarily individualistic in their outlook, and their accepted code 
of ethics, which justifies flagrant les told to patients in order to 
shield the reputations of incompetent fellow-practitioners, is im- 
moral, in any true sense of the word. The public knows (and 
faddists, charlatans, and fighters for ‘‘medical freedom” make the 
most of the fact) that the ranks of the quacks, of the narcotic 
vendors, of the abortionists, and of the bootleggers contain many 
a graduated and duly licensed M.D.; and that it is sometimes 
difficult to get one physician to tell the truth about another, under 
oath, even in matters of the most serious character. 

All this is not to disparage the leaders, to deny that there are 
many physicians well qualified for their work, or to lack hope for 
the future improvement of the profession. But the idea that the 
profession as such is a leader in social and educational matters is 
largely a survival of the savage’s veneration for the priestcraft 
and the medicine men. An amusing sidelight on this point is the 


EDUCATION 177 


suggestion lately made, that certain books on sex education should 
be sold only on a physician’s prescription—as if they were cocaine 
or Volsteadized whisky! The average physician has almost 
everything to learn, about the conservation of the family; but the 
necessity of making a living and keeping up with the progress of a 
vast and active specialty, leaves him little time to go back to the 
groundwork of evolution. Hence to depend on doctors, merely 
because they are doctors, to teach social hygiene, is merely to 
invite what actually happens in such a case—that a revolting mass 
of information about venereal diseases, prostitution, and sexual 
perversions is thrown at the heads of young people, and no effective 
attempt made to inculcate a broad, sound, constructive point of 
view in a matter that above all others requires such a point of view. 
The congressman who in a recent speech declared his interest in 
“maternity and other diseases of women” probably got his start 
in a lecture by the school physician. Putting sex education in the 
hands of the medical profession inevitably links it with the ab- 
normal and pathological, in the minds of the young. For every 
reason, physicians should have as little as possible to do with the 
subject. 


TEACHING FOR FAMILY LIFE 


More is to be expected from teachers of biology, especially if 
they are parents themselves, and not merely young women waiting 
impatiently for an opportunity to become parents. A specialist 
might well start with a broad foundation of biology from an evolu- 
tionary point of view, particularly emphasizing genetics; on this 
a superstructure of physiology, psychology, sociology, and other 
studies could be set. But the training of adolescents for family life 
can not be left to any one specialist or any one course, and the 
attempt to make this a separate subject is a fundamental mistake. 
Every phase of education should be directed toward preparing the 
pupil for life; and as family life is the ultimate development, it 
should prepare above everything else for family life. 

It would be difficult to lay out a curriculum less adapted to this 
purpose than most of those now to be found in the United States. 


178 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


Surprisingly little improvement has been made in the three- 
quarters of a century, marked by so much progress in other fields of 
science, since Herbert Spencer discussed this subject in his essays 
on Education. A girl is not allowed to get past the eighth grade 
without knowing how to extract cube roots, although it is as certain 
as anything can be that not one in a thousand will use this knowl- 
edge at any time during the rest of her life; but a girl may graduate 
from elementary school, high school, and college, and take a doc- 
tor’s degree at a university, without ever learning why breast- 
feeding is better for infants than bottle-feeding, or without ever 
being shown that the production of two infants, in a marriage, is 
not enough to replace the father and mother and keep the race 
from declining in numbers. 

Why has it so far proved impossible to get the educational 
system to prepare children for life? ‘The answer is doubtless to be 
sought in the inherent resistance to change, that all complex insti- 
tutions possess, and the educational system above some others, 
The latter is largely an outgrowth of monasticism and of the 
Renaissance cult of classicism, and has not yet wholly outgrown 
its medieval clothes. 

In earlier days, all the available knowledge concerning family 
life was acquired by the young (especially by girls) in their own 
homes. The only purpose of a school was to supply knowledge 
that could not be had in their own homes; particularly knowledge 
of the extinct classical civilizations. Since the beginning of the 
industrial revolution (usually dated about 1760), the home has 
gradually lost the ability to train its young for family life. The 
educational system should have noticed this fact, and altered its 
own methods to make up for the change. It has done so, however, 
only to a very small extent. 

The whole modern curriculum appears to be shaped more or less 
unconsciously toward teaching people to teach. It is time to 
turn around and teach them to live. If they are going to teach 
afterward, they will teach none the worse for knowing how to live. 
The whole curriculum must be shaped much more consciously 
and intelligently toward the conservation of the family, and not be 


EDUCATION 179 


looked on as an end in itself or as a training ground for those who 
seek the State Certificate. 

This situation is illuminated by the results of an inquiry which 
M. V. O’Shea addressed to 5,000 women college graduates. He 
asked whether they were well enough satisfied with the courses 
they took to want to take them over again, if they were to start 
at the beginning once more; and if they would want their daughters 
to take the same courses. ‘The teachers, taken as a whole, are 
quite well satisfied with the education they received at high school 
and college,” Dr. O’Shea reports. ‘The home makers, mothers, 
and social workers are, with very few exceptions, discontented 
with their education. Only four of the home makers and mothers 
would select the same course of study that they originally pursued, 
if they had an opportunity to go over their high school and college 
course again, because they failed to receive much help in solving 
the particular problems with which they have had to deal every 
day since they became home makers and mothers. ‘The severest 
condemnation of the educational program was made by those who 
signed themselves mothers. Very few of them had an opportunity 
to study subjects in either high school or college that pertained 
to the nature or training of children, and now they have to care 
for children and train them. They do not want their daughters 
to go through the same regime that they were compelled to pursue. 
They do not wish to have their daughters pursue studies that relate 
only to the care and training of children or to home making, but 
they would like to have them devote some time to these matters 
while they are in high school and college. 

“Tt is worthy of special mention that graduates of colleges for 
women complain more generally of the lack of opportunities to 
pursue courses related to home making and motherhood than do 
graduates of coeducational universities.” 

It is generally recognized in the theory of education that each 
subject should contribute to all other subjects: that the student 
of history or biology should learn English and logic from them as 
well, and so on. This sound doctrine must be applied effectively 
for the benefit of the home. Some subjects of course lend them- 


180 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


selves more to this purpose than do others, though an enthusiast 
has declared that even grammar may be made the basis for sex 
education, since it has to do with gender and number. Biology 
and nature study, physiology and hygiene, physical training, 
domestic science and art, medicine, genetics and eugenics, psy- 
chology, sociology, ethics, religion, and above all, literature— 
whether English or foreign—are particularly capable of being made 
the vehicles of direct or indirect instruction. 

But a different attitude will be required from that now often 
found. ‘There is no need to try to prepare for family life by an 
anemic course entitled “Sociology 4, Origin and Development of 
the Family as an Institution (2 units),”’ taught in the same spirit 
which, teaching literature, only succeeds in disgusting the student 
with literature so that he never reads another good book during 
the rest of his life. 

For some reason, many persons have come to think of education 
for family life as being “sex education,” and further to think of it 
as a distinct, narrow, and special field of education. No greater 
mistake could be made than to attempt to prepare for family life 
in any such spirit. Unless the family is regarded as the central 
fact in human life, and all education is directed toward that fact, 
it will not reach the fullest success. Above all it must be insisted, 
in season and out of season, that merely to put certain knowledge 
into the hands of the students is not the object of education for 
family life. Such a conception is wholly inadequate and mis- 
chievously misleading. The object of such an education is the 
formation of character with a view to the guidance of action 
throughout life. Knowledge is necessary for this purpose, but 
mere knowledge alone may be worse than nothing at all. 


THE TRAINING OF GIRLS 


As sex plays a somewhat larger part in the life of woman than 
of man, it is logical that, if there is to be any difference in emphasis, 
women should have more thorough preparation for family life than 
do men. At present it can scarcely be said that this is the case. 
As long as the official spokesmen of women are so often abnormal 


EDUCATION 181 


females whose avocation is to sympathize with themselves, it will 
be difficult to get the education of young women turned in the 
most desirable directions. No woman should be permitted to 
hold a responsible position of leadership in the educational world, 
such as president or dean of a college; or in a federal or state 
bureau devoted to the welfare of children and the family; unless 
she has successfully brought up children of her own. 

The smug satisfaction of the eastern women’s separate colleges 
with their own obsolete point of view is particularly a stumbling 
block, because so many young girls look to this group for leader- 
ship and inspiration. Bryn Mawr offers girls four courses in San- 
skrit, but none in mothercraft. Wellesley offers six in geology, 
but none in mothercraft. Mount Holyoke offers eight in as- 
tronomy, but none in mothercraft. Smith offers 17 in mathe- 
matics, but none in mothercraft. Vassar! offers 18 in Greek, with 
three extra in Greek Archaeology, but none in mothercraft. 

Defenders of the old order sometimes deny the necessity of 
differentiating the education of the sexes. The general culture 
is the same for both, they declare: both are to live in the same 
world. So far as a triviality like cookery goes, it is merely the ap- 
plication of some elementary principles of physics, chemistry, and 
bacteriology. If a girl gets these principles, she can apply them 
easily enough when the time comes. 

Such a plea does not meet the facts squarely. It is true that 
higher education for the two sexes need not be very much differ- 
entiated; but it needs to be more differentiated than it now is. It 
will hardly be denied that what the women’s colleges have really 
attempted to do is to assimilate man’s culture as a whole. There 
is no objection to this as far as it goes (though some might think 
that man’s culture represents a low enough ideal). But it stops 
short. Modern research continually emphasizes the need of 
differentiation of the environment of the two sexes to foster special- 
ization of the particular functions connected with marriage and 
parenthood. There is need for serious consideration of the desir- 


1] am informed that Vassar is now entering the field of education for family 
life in a more effective way. 


182 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


ability of greater specialization in such matters as (a) sports, (b) 
teachers (including more men to teach the boys), (c) content of 
special courses, and (d) emphasis in some general courses. The 
last word has by no means been said on this subject, but emphatic 
protest must be made against the assumption that there is nothing 
at all to say. 

Certainly the women who have completed the type of curriculum 
represented by the women’s colleges, and have founded families, 
are far from satisfied with what was given them. And certainly 
the principle mentioned in the paragraph before the last is not 
accepted in any other kind of life work. If the engineering student 
who applied for a job on an irrigation project confessed that he 
had never run a level, but boasted that he had made a careful study 
of the theory of trigonometry, he would be laughed out of camp. 
Yet the notion that girls should study only abstract principles in 
college, and then find out how to apply them in practice, after they 
marry, is on the same footing. 

Just as the engineering student spends his Saturday mornings 
running levels about the campus, or measuring the altitude of the 
chapel tower, in preparation for his future career, so the woman 
should have abundant laboratory work in such elementary feats 
as bathing an infant or attending him through minor ailments. 
Anyone who has tried for the first time to bathe a new-born babe 
knows that “maternal instinct” is far from sufficient to ensure a 
workmanlike job. At present many girls do not get such experi- 
ence in their own homes prior to marriage; consequently they grow 
up ignorant and fearful, with a natural reluctance to undertake 
duties with which they are unfamiliar, and on the proper discharge 
of which a human life may depend. The graduate of a woman’s 
college is more likely to know the respective merits of the Italian 
painters of the fifteenth century, than to know what to do when her 
baby has convulsions. 


EDUCATION FOR FATHERHOOD 


Potential fathers as well as potential mothers need education. 
The surprising thing is not that the family functions so badly in 


EDUCATION 183 


modern civilized society, but that it functions even as well as it 
does, considering the obstacles that it has to encounter. 

T. W. Galloway has pointed out that the family is much more 
successful than the grocery store—to cite a single other institution 
by way of illustration. The percentage of families which survives 
is six times as great as the percentage of groceries which avoid 
bankruptcy. The men who found families are presumably of 
about the same average order of intelligence as the men who estab- 
lish grocery stores. But in the latter case the grocer has at his 
disposal all the agents of a highly organized wholesale business, 
interested in putting their knowledge at his disposal and seeing him 
succeed; he has on his table numerous trade papers, as well as 
high grade periodicals dealing more broadly with every phase of 
the theory and practice of retailing; he has access to numerous 
expensive and well-organized business colleges and high schools, 
and university departments (including extension and night courses) 
which teach business administration. 

The father, on the other hand, will look in vain for any school 
to teach him the most elementary duties of fatherhood. He will 
scan in vain the polychromatic displays of newsstands for a maga- 
zine devoted to the problems of fatherhood. He will receive no 
visits from traveling men, anxious to aid him in making his work a 
success. He will, on the contrary, meet at every turn handicaps, 
detailed in the pages of this book and only too well known by 
experience to most fathers, and will encounter on every side an 
attitude of society which is seemingly intended to make it as hard 
as possible for him to succeed as a father. 

The Commonwealth professes an interest in seeing that every 
boy and girl is developed into a good citizen. Should it not take 
a greater and more active interest in seeing that they become good 
parents, also? Is it not time that the production of a family be 
looked on as at least as important to the nation as the distribution 
of groceries, and that the father be provided with at least as much 
help as is available to ““Your Neighborhood Grocer?” 

The object of sex education in the past has too often seemed to 
be the production of chaste celibates. These are all right in their 


184 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


place, but intelligent fathers and mothers are better, and the 
object of all education should be to produce young people who will 
be, among other things, intelligent fathers and mothers. 


THOSE WHO ARE MISSED 


The critical reader who agrees with this ideal will probably point 
out two serious practical difficulties, of which I have not hitherto 
taken much account in this discussion. In the first place, he will 
say, it is all very well to demand that parents teach their children, 
but most parents simply can not or will not do so: what is to be 
done about this? Jn the second place, four-fifths of the young 
people in the United States never get any farther than the eighth 
grade, at most. They leave grammar school to go to work. How 
are these to receive the necessary education? 

The previous discussion dealt primarily with what I conceive 
to be some of the fundamental principles of education as related 
to the conservation of the family. The two grave difficulties just 
mentioned, in the application of these principles, must now be 
considered. 

1. It will be admitted frankly by all interested in the subject, 
that, (a) many parents now can not or will not teach their children, 
but that, on the other hand, (b) there is now no agency to take 
their place. It is not now feasible,—and it never will be,—to make 
schools take the place of parents in this respect. Therefore, if 
parents will not do their duty, the first thing to do is to educate 
the parents,—more particularly, those who are soon to be parents. 
It is of course not to be supposed that any changes necessary in 
education for family life will be made at once and completely. 
As far as that goes, they will never be made completely. There 
will always be some parents too ignorant, irresponsible, mentally 
diseased, or vicious, to do their duty by their children. Nothing 
more can be expected than a determined attack all along the line, 
to see to it that a smaller part of the body of parents in each 
generation falls into any one of these classes. 

Much can be done, and in some cases is being done, with existing 
parents by men’s and women’s clubs, parent-teacher associations, 


EDUCATION 185 


church or fraternal societies, extension departments of colleges, 
night schools, and community organizations definitely formed for 
this purpose. The biggest single undertaking is that of the Na- 
tional Congress of Parents and Teachers, representing 900,000 
members. But the task is so great, and the inertia to be overcome 
is so tremendous, that all the energy available is needed. 

2. Since the elementary schools can not deal adequately with 
family education, yet 80 percent of the population never gets any 
farther than these schools, what is to be done for this 80 percent, 
most of whom will also not receive adequate training from their 
parents? That is the main practical question involved in this 
whole section, and one too easily slighted in theorizing. 

The only solution lies in thorough and intelligent community 
organization. If leaders are convinced that the job must be done, 
itcan be done. “Every agency and individual that has to do with 
young life in any intimate way must be brought (a) to recognize 
responsibility, (b) to prepare itself as sanely as possible to con- 
tribute its part in inspiring boys and girls with sex ideals and 
attitudes that are true, appealing, and workable, and (c) to co- 
operate wisely with other instrumentalities in keeping its efforts 
well within pedagogically safe bounds.”’ Prominent among these 
potentially valuable agencies are: clergymen and churches, church 
schools, public and private schools, physicians and medical organi- 
zations, Christian Associations, all types of boys’ and girls’ or- 
ganizations, lodges and clubs of men and women, physical and 
play directors, and other social workers, Big Brothers and Big 
Sisters, employers in business and industry, guilds, trade organi- 
zations, and unions and associations of every kind. If the people 
in these various groups really want their boys and girls to grow 
up to be successful mates and parents, a new social conscience and 
an enlightened public opinion and wholesome atmosphere about 
parenthood can be created in a few years in any community. 

Of course this does not mean that the zealous missionary will 
pounce on every child seen unattended in the street and inquire, 
“Little boy, do you know where babies come from?” It means 
largely an indirect campaign, which by taking account of the 


186 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


fundamentals underlying wise mating, will create a community 
in which children will unconsciously absorb the right ideals. A 
vigorous public opinion to deal with the daily press, magazines, 
motion pictures, drama, commercial amusements, elementary edu- 
cation, and broken homes, and all the things that go to make up 
the indirect but powerful pressure that is exerted to mould the 
child mind, will do the work. 

Space is lacking here to describe any of the numerous excellent 
attempts now under way to solve these problems. They will be 
found in current social and mental hygiene and educational liter- 
ature. Much is already being done, but it is perhaps only one 
percent of what needs to be done, and what will have to be done 
before education will fulfil its function of preparing young people 
for life, in such a way as has been outlined by Herbert Spencer 
and many other thinkers before and since. 


II. PUBLIC OPINION 


Most of the things that men and women think, say, and do are, 
in part at least, the result of the complex action of powerful forces 
that may be grouped together under the title of public opinion. 
Without analyzing this, I shall in this section try to do no more than 
to classify loosely a number of ideas that seem to have immediate, 
practical importance, and to depend largely on public opinion, 
under five heads, as they relate to (1) children, (2) young people, 
(3) matrimony, (4) childbearing, and (5) some of the evils men- 


tioned in Part II, that interfere with the normal course of family 
life. 


CHILDREN 


1. In the previous section emphasis was laid on the education 
of children, and particularly that important part of education 
which comes from imitation of parents. Here it is worth while 
to emphasize two points. 

(a) Sex differentiation is biologically of fundamental impor- 
tance, and the conservation and development of the great biological 
differences between male and female should begin in earliest in- 
fancy. Girls should be brought up to be girls, and eventually 
women and mothers; boys to be boys, men, and fathers. 

It is necessary to insist on this because the extreme feminist 
attitude, with its complex of sex-inferiority and its desire to acquire 
the supposedly more honorific qualities of the opposite sex, is driv- 
ing in the opposite direction. Charlotte Perkins Gilman, for 
instance, urges that little girls should be forbidden to play with 
dolls, lest they thereby become feminine. Many followers of this 
perverted counsel have probably had the experience of Charlotte 
V. Gulick who found, though her girl was given no dolls and 
supposed not even to know what a doll was, that the child took 
an old rag and endowed it with the imaginary attributes of 
infancy—the mother instinct was not so easily to be balked. 

187 


188 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


Part of the maladjustment in modern marriage is due to the lack 
of normal sexual development, mentally more than physically, 
in boys and girls. The latter are subjected to feminist theories, 
while the former are brought up by their mothers and by women 
teachers, and get little contact with men. It is high time to 
change the emphasis, both in the home and in the school, and delib- 
erately endeavor to bring out in each sex the high values and pre- 
cious gifts which it alone has. In the country, boys beyond the 
creeping age can spend much of the time out of doors with their 
fathers, and as they grow older they remain more and more in 
masculine companionship during the day. This is of especial 
importance at the ages 8 to 12, when a boy profits most by his 
father’s influence. One of the most serious drawbacks of city life 
results from the segregation of fathers by business, which makes 
it impossible for their boys to be with them, and throws the latter 
almost wholly on the hands of their mothers and female relatives, 
or into the society of other children. 

The lack of differentiation in education, especially in the later 
years, and the endeavor of many girls to assimilate the ways of boys 
as far as possible, has an indirect evil influence on family life, by 
concealing from boys the real differences in the mental life of the 
two sexes. Having been encouraged to look on girls as differing 
little from themselves, they carry this attitude over into marriage, 
and by sheer ignorance make many mistakes in their attitudes 
toward their wives. It is not necessary to make a mystery of the 
female sex, as was sometimes done during the middle ages; but a 
franker recognition of some of the deep differences, mentally and 
emotionally, between the sexes would encourage young men to 
study this subject more carefully, and thereby make a greater 
success of their married life. 

As to models for boys, Sir Galahad is not the best hero. Ina 
minor way, plays like L’Aiglon, The Blue Bird, Peter Pan, and 
several of Shakespeare’s, in which girls habitually play the réle 
of boys, have an undesirable influence. Even worse is female 
impersonation on the vaudeville stage by physically defective 
males. 


PUBLIC OPINION 189 


Sex is a quantitative character, of course; all grades of it can be 
found. ‘The two sexes shade off into each other—thus some women 
are more mannish than some men, and vice versa. 

Apparently this is taken by one sect of feminists to justify edu- 
cation that will make all women mannish. But the only sound 
inference to be drawn from the quantitative nature of sex is that 
education should be directed toward bringing out the best and most 
characteristic features of each sex, rather than reducing them 
both to a common level of primitive, unspecialized animality. The 
proof of this is to be found by an examination of both types. It will 
be seen that individuals who are lacking in normal sexual develop- 
ment are, relatively, less efficient, less happy, and less useful 
members of society. They tend to suffer from mental disturbances 
and also, it appears, from physical disturbances. They seem to 
be more liable to certain diseases than are their more normally 
developed brothers or sisters. 

To a large extent, it is true, an individual’s degree of sexuality 
is an inborn trait, fixed forever at the moment of conception. 
But to a large extent, also, it is capable of modification by educa- 
tion and environment. Hence the importance of ordering a child’s 
life in such a way as to bring out the best qualities of his or her own 
Sex. 

Apology is sometimes made for the low marriage rate of graduates 
of women’s separate colleges, by the plea that only girls who are 
somewhat lacking in marriageability are sent there. If parents 
know a daughter will marry, it is declared, they do not send her to 
such an institution. If they think she may not, they enter her 
there in order to prepare her for a career. 

While this statement has a small element of truth, its implica- 
tions are bad. Girls who are, through birth or faulty upbringing, 
lacking in attractiveness to men or uninterested in marriage and 
motherhood, are in many cases the very ones who should have the 
benefit of the opposite course of treatment. They should rather 
be sent to a small coeducational college where they would rub el- 
bows daily with boys, and have an opportunity to develop their 
emotional natures along normal lines. 


190 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


If a boy isa “‘sissy,”’ his parents do not send him to an institution 
where the other boys are of this type—they send him to a military 
academy or some other school where they think the frills will be 
knocked off and the masculinity appear. Conversely, unromantic 
girls should be given every encouragement to develop normally, 
and not be condemned to lifelong celibacy by being sent to institu- 
tions patterned on the model of convents. 

(b) Avoidance of precocity in development of the mental char- 
acteristics of sex sometimes demands attention. ‘The habit some 
adults have, of trying to force children into their own erotic atti- 
tudes is thoroughly vicious. Infants not yet out of the nursery 
are teased about their “‘sweethearts.’? Few amusements delight 
the average group of women more than to get a little boy and little 
girl in a room together and try to force them to caress each other. 
Somewhat later, when the boy and girl begin normally to take a 
keen interest in the opposite sex, they are plagued and tormented 
endlessly by all their relatives. The sexual development of chil- 
dren will usually take excellent care of itself if it is left alone; there 
is plenty of stimulus for it in every-day life, without the addition 
of an artificial and vicious stimulus based on the desire of older 
persons to get a vicarious satisfaction of their own over-stimulated 
sexual interests at the expense of the young and unsophisticated. 


YOUNG PEOPLE 


2. Something has been said in the preceding section about the 
formal education of young people for family life, but it is worth 
while to consider more fully the education of the emotions—the 
most important and yet most neglected field in education. 

Why is “‘vice’’ so often more seductive than ‘‘virtue?”’ Largely 
because, in the sense the words are popularly (though vaguely) 
used, vice is an active thing: it is doing something. It therefore 
satisfies, to some extent, the inherent craving of the living creature 
for activity. Virtue, on the other hand, tends to be negative— 
it consists largely of ‘‘don’t.” 

It is a legitimate challenge to those who take life seriously, 
to make virtue more dynamic, more entertaining, more alluring 


PUBLIC OPINION 191 


than vice, instead of letting virtue consist merely in repressions 
and inhibitions. It sometimes must seem to the young that the 
white race has built up a civilization in which there is nothing 
interesting except “‘sin.”” It must rebuild. 

Under the present system of education, which (if it teaches any- 
thing) teaches the negative virtue of continence instead of the 
positive, militant virtue of chastity, there has been a strong ten- 
dency to cramp the more docile young people into a condition of 
sterilized repression from which they could never recover; while 
the more resistant, vigorous, impulsive young people broke over 
the barriers and found the activity they craved in ways that were 
harmful both to themselves at the time and to society in general. 
It ought not to be difficult to provide the young with a regime that 
would give a normal outlet for the emotions and lead to a healthful, 
well-rounded development instead of to excess on one side or 
starvation on the other. 

All sorts of open-air athletics, particularly those such as swim- 
ming and tennis in which both sexes take part, and all sorts of self- 
expression through art, may be counted on tohelp. A great danger 
of modern life is that people do not actively participate in their 
amusements: they sit silently, in the dark, while watching a film; 
applaud decorously once in a while at the theater; hear a symphony 
concert with dignified attention; or if they “let loose’’a little more 
at a baseball game, yet fail to get one percent of the exercise that 
the players are getting. William James long ago called attention 
to the deep-seated evil of this condition, but it appears to be 
getting worse rather than better each year. Dancing (classical, 
folk, and social), amateur dramatics, and music afford means of 
self-expression that should be much more highly developed. 

The emotions in general are thus given an outlet. The emotions 
concerned more particularly with marriage find their normal 
development in activities that are well recognized but have no 
satisfactory name. Flirtation is perhaps the best term available. 
It is as natural to young people as is eating or drinking, and while 
its manifestations sometimes distress the more esthetic or sophis- 
ticated minds of their elders, it is by no means to be repressed in- 


192 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


discriminately, for it represents the method of trial and error by 
which boys and girls are acquiring and refining their ideals of 
mating. A certain amount of development of the tender emotion 
is necessary at this premarital period, and while it must be kept 
within bounds, it is just as bad not to let it go far enough, as to let 
it go too far. 

Normally this age is outgrown within 10 years, as I have pointed 
out in a previous section. The period when one is more or less 
indiscriminately “boy crazy” or “‘girl crazy,”’ as the case may be, 
is succeeded by the period when one selects a particular member 
of the opposite sex for life-long comradeship. ‘The elderly philan- 
derer and male flirt is regarded with amused contempt by all women 
past the grammar school age, as representing a stage of arrested 
development. 

The emotions concerned more particularly with childbearing 
and child-rearing find their normal outlet in the play of childhood, 
in care of younger brothers and sisters, and in help, as the child 
grows older, with all the family problems. Under the conditions 
of modern city life, opportunities for this sort of development are 
restricted. Much could be done, by the development of mother- 
craft, to give older girls an opportunity of coming into contact with 
little children and learning to care for them. There would be a 
wide field for remunerative employment, if places were available 
where mothers could leave their children under skilled supervision, 
for an occasional day or half-day, in order to free themselves for 
other occupations or amusement. Such places should be not ex- 
actly kindergartens, day nurseries, or clinics, but a combination of 
all three. I believe that most mothers of the well-to-do classes 
would patronize them, with benefit to themselves and their children 
as well as to the young women operating these institutions. Be- 
yond this, the amount of charitable work of the same sort that could 
be done profitably for the children of families too poor to pay, is 
unlimited. Girls who now drift into teaching school, merely to 
occupy their time until they marry,! would find in such work as this 


1 Teachers sometimes ask of a woman unknown to them, whose name is 
mentioned in conversation, ‘Is she married, single, or teaching?” Pedagogy 
is universally recognized as representing what war-time draft boards called a 
deferred classification. 


PUBLIC OPINION 193 


a more interesting and socially useful form of employment, and 
one that would give their own emotions a much more satisfactory 
outlet. It should be understood clearly, however, that it was not 
to furnish lifelong ‘‘careers’’ for women. (See the following section, 
Community Organization.) 

Ellen Key and others have proposed that all young women give 
a year or more of compulsory service to the state, in the furtherance 
of motherhood, just as young men in Europe do their compulsory 
military service. Such a proposal would meet with little favor 
in the United States, where the principle of compulsory military 
service is not viewed with pleasure. There may be something 
to be said for it in Europe. 


MATRIMONY 


3. A frank, wholesome attitude toward matrimony in general, 
with fewer whispers and snickers, would be of great benefit. Par- 
ticularly helpful, however, would be an active, though unofficious, 
assistance of young people in finding mates. ‘Those who grow up 
in small communities find the way relatively easy: it is natural 
for them to marry comrades whom they meet at church, school, 
or club, or in the houses of friends, and whom they have known 
for years before marriage. But a large part of the marriageable 
population is now found in great cities, alone and friendless. ‘These 
people want to marry as much as anyone else does, but their diffi- 
culty in meeting any large number of eligibles is appalling. 

Men are nearly always generous in helping boys to get a start 
in business, but in the more important matter of starting a family 
there is general indifference, timidity, or fear of being ridiculed, of 
making a mistake, or of being considered a busybody. This does 
not apply in such full force to women—indeed, the matchmaking 
proclivities of mothers are proverbial. They. are, however, too 
often selfish and limited. It is right enough that a woman should 
use every effort to marry off her own daughter, or some particular 
protegée, but what is needed is not so much the deliberate attempt 
to make a match, as it ts the deliberate attempt to give young 
people a wider range of contacts with eligibles, so that they can 


194. THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


make matches for themselves under favorable conditions. There 
need be nothing ostentatious or embarrassing about such efforts. 
Most elderly people,if they were not too much wrapped up in their 
own affairs, would find immense pleasure in having around them 
a lot of superior young people, and in constantly seeking new ones 
of the same quality to add to the circle. In this way, the young 
man in a city, who now meets only the landlady’s daughter and the 
girls in his own office; and the young woman in a city, who perhaps 
does not meet any young men at all, would have a fair chance to 
find mates, and not be driven into celibacy or, desperate, into 
snatching at the first unmarried person of the opposite sex who 
appeared on the horizon. 

In another direction there is room for many changes in the con- 
cept of marriage, to satisfy the demands of those women who feel 
that the institution of matrimony is at present a cramping and 
confining one, in which the woman becomes a shackled dependent, 
losing all opportunity for freedom, individuality, self-expression, 
and creative work. 

It is difficult to know how to meet, in every case, such demands 
—when they are sincere: for in many cases they are the mere 
defensive reaction or “‘sour grapes’ snarl of the spinster, the 
divorcee, or the kept woman. ‘The institution itself can scarcely 
be held responsible; for, being merely a status resulting from 
mutual contract, it is nothing more nor less than what the two 
persons concerned make it. In many cases it has been made an 
unlovely thing, through the ignorance or perversity of husband 
or wife or both; but the remedy is manifestly to be applied to each 
individual case, and not to the institution as an institution. So far 
as women’s legal rights go, they are now in most states better 
secured than are those of men. 

Beyond this, it is true that in nearly every modern marriage there 
is room for (a) more romance, (b) more understanding, (c) more 
freedom, (d) more courtesy, (e) more respect for personality, and 
(f) more opportunity for really living. Marriage should be and 
can be the greatest agent for promoting progress in all these direc- 
tions. Nothing more is required, in most cases, than that the two 


PUBLIC OPINION 195 


partners give serious thought to it, and this involves the whole 
subject of intelligent education for marriage, which has been 
insisted on more than once in this volume. Such matters as the 
necessity for a separate home (no house being large enough for 
two families), the interferences of relatives, particularly mothers- 
in-law, the desirability of a budget and fair division of the family 
income,—these and many other important topics of the same sort 
have been dealt with amply by other writers, and are thoroughly 
understood by everyone who has attended tothem. But in respect 
of preparation, it should be remembered more commonly that love 
is an art, and is not to be learned by study of the failures and 
abnormalities that fill most sexual treatises, any more than painting 
or sculpture is to be learnt by living amidst wretched exhibitions 
of bad workmanship and never seeing a good statue or drawing. 
In practice, moreover, one should not expect the impossible of 
marriage—it is a human institution, subject to all the frailties of 
human nature. 

Men must realize that their married life needs and should have 
at least as much attention as their business life. They must es- 
pecially (a) allow more time for loving—it takes time; and (b) 
be ready to devote more time to their children. The man who 
thinks the greatest thing he can do for his family is to make a 
million dollars, has a wrong set of values. Even more mistaken is 
the man whose mind is set solely on attaining power or distinction. 
History is full of the remarks of men who, at the close of a life 
spent in the pursuit of fame, have described bitterly the futility and 
disillusionment of it all, agreeing with The Preacher that ‘‘All is 
vanity.”” But I do not remember ever reading of a father who, 
after successfully bringing up a worthy family, expressed regret 
over a misspent life. 

On the other hand, women probably err quite as often as men, 
in unwillingness to carry their share of the load. ‘The merely decor- 
ative, parasite wife is a conspicuous feature of city life in this as in 
previous civilizations. The woman who thinks her husband’s 
only occupation and duty are to entertain her and gratify her whims 
is a frequent client of the divorce courts. The hefairae of ancient 


196 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


Greece are reproduced in many professions and callings of present- 
day civilization by not a few attractive young women whose ambi- 
tion it is to be ‘‘free,” to charm men intellectually and emotionally; 
but of course, ‘‘no babies!”’ 

The ‘‘woman problem” is a perennial one in human society. 
Some feminists talk as if woman had hitherto always been subju- 
gated (save in a mythical matriarchal period, to which they look 
back with fond regret, when man was merely the obsequious servant 
of woman and tolerated only as a “‘biological necessity’’). The fact 
is that in every civilization the question of woman’s position has 
arisen in much the same acute way that it has during the last cen- 
tury. Details have varied with the form of civilization, but in 
essence the situation has been the same. At a certain point 
in any culture, the biological differentiation of the two sexes begins 
to be hampered by social and economic factors. ‘Then a certain 
proportion of abnormal or ill-educated women begins to een 
for individualism and emancipation. 

No historian has yet appeared to do justice to this recurrent 
phenomenon, but every high school student knows some of the 
outstanding facts, particularly as they developed in Rome, where 
conditions were in many ways strikingly parallel to those in 
modern occidental civilization. Feminism was one of the many 
biological factors involved in the downfall of the empire. It might 
be possible to defend the thesis that no civilization has ever been 
able to survive after the natural biological differentiation of the 
sexes was weakened. 

Present-day civilization has in some respects a better chance of 
survival than had past civilizations, because there is now available 
a much larger body of data to establish the proper relationship 
of thesexes. Any unprejudiced inquirer ought to be able to satisfy 
himself that ‘““emancipation”’ as understood by extreme feminists 
means not emancipation but slavery; that freedom is to be found 
only in a situation where the individual is not working in opposition 
to his or her own inborn dispositions. Self-realization, for men 
and women alike, can not be found in a celibate or pseudo-celibate, 
money-making, notoriety-seeking career; but in the normal satis- 


PUBLIC OPINION 197 


factions of family life to which men and women are adapted by 
countless generations of organic evolution. 


CHILDBEARING 


4, Cornelia Stratton Parker tells of receiving a call, while with 
her husband at Harvard, from some Boston woman who learned 
that she had a child in arms and another on the way. ‘How 
interesting!’ exclaimed the visitor, in all seriousness. ‘“‘Just like 
the slums.” 

Speaking by and large, the attitude of the public toward child- 
birth may be said to embrace the following ideas: 

(a) That for a child to be born within a year of the wedding day 
is both funny and vulgar. 

(b) That to have many children is both an evidence of bad 
taste and an indication of carelessness. 

(c) That the sight of a pregnant woman is a matter either for 
ridicule or for pity, the public being about equally divided in this 
respect. 

These are points on which clear thinking and plain speaking 
should be the care of responsible people. Theodore Roosevelt 
did not hesitate publicly and vigorously to rebuke those who took 
this attitude toward childbearing. Others may well follow his 
example. 

At one period in early Rome, the door of a pregnant woman was 
always crowned with garlands; while in early Greece her home 
was a sanctuary in which the accused could take inviolate refuge. 
It is not necessary to bring back old customs: it ought to be 
possible to invent some new ones. Jules Michelet desired that 
every man who passed a pregnant woman on the street should 
take off his hat to her; as to which Gaston Rageot justly remarks 
that taken literally, the suggestion is bad manners; taken figur- 
atively, it is far from enough. 

On the other hand, discrimination is important. Childbearing, 
of itself, is not necessarily praiseworthy; and the pregnant woman, 
although to be treated with consideration in every case, is by no 
means always to be admired. The only childbearing worthy of 


198 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


commendation is the bearing of good children under proper circum- 
stances. A mere sentimental attitude toward maternity encour- 
ages the multiplication of some highly undesirable types. More- 
over, aS soon as maternity is considered a merit in itself, without 
any qualifications, the way is open to put irresponsible, unmarried 
motherhood on the same level with motherhood ina family. While 
one can not always draw a sharp line and say, this motherhood is 
to be praised, that to be condemned, yet those who care for the 
conservation of the family will bear in mind the supreme impor- 
tance of quality. 


INTERFERING CONDITIONS 


5. Among the means of forming public opinion and guiding 
action, art and literature stand high. A scrutiny of present tenden- 
cies in these fields in the United States is disquieting to any one 
interested in the conservation of family life. 

Almost all of current fiction, poetry,? drama, and motion-pic- 
tures is highly individualistic, and not in any way evolutionary. 
Much of it is frankly erotism or fantasy, poor food for the mind of 
man or beast. 

Standard published fiction is bad enough, much of it being writ- 
ten by “those modern beggars for fame, who,” in Thomas Babing- 
ton Macaulay’s phrase, “extort a pittance from the compassion of 
the inexperienced by exposing the nakedness and sores of their 
minds.’”’ But modern magazines are perhaps worse. ‘The level 
of many of them has sunk markedly during the past decade, while 
there have sprung into existence several new classes of periodical 
of sinister import: the small, frankly pornographic and obscene 
monthly, published in some obscure country town, shipped by 
express to avoid postal censorship, and sold for 25 cents to any 
passer-by; the more pretentious magazine which prints porno- 


2 To cite a couple of instances at random, two of the most widely accepted 
singers of love are Laurence Hope (Mrs. Malcolm H. Nicolson) and Sara 
Teasdale (Mrs. Ernst B. Filsinger). The former’s motif is the evanescence of 
passion; the latter’s refrain is the failure of reality to satisfy her as do her day 
dreams. A sound mind can not be nourished long by such stuff. 


PUBLIC OPINION 199 


graphic material under the guise of bogus “‘confessions”’ and false 
“true stories;’’ and the ““Peppery Stories” type which specializes 
in aphrodisiacal fiction. 

Such magazines can nearly always be suppressed without much 
trouble by the force of public opinion, with legal action where 
necessary. No one is seriously interested in defending them, aside 
from those who make a living by pandering to the lowest tastes of 
mankind, save a few professional zealots for ‘‘personal liberty.” 
The latter are active and vociferous, but analysis usually shows 
that their idea of personal liberty is liberty to get drunk, liberty to 
enjoy lascivious literature, and liberty to commit fornication. 
Such a program will hardly prevail with thoughtful people. 

Objectionable dramas and films can be dealt with by the same 
means as objectionable books and magazines. If people who are 
coaxed by misrepresentation into a salacious entertainment would 
get up and walk out, complaining at the box office and demanding 
the return of their money, they might not get the money but they 
would soon change the point of view of the box office. 

Modern commercialism has at least one redeeming feature: it 
offers a tender spot for attack in the case of anti-social productions. 
The pandering showman or back-alley publisher whose musical 
comedy or book is obscene usually protests frantically, when 
cornered, that he has property rights in the production, which must 
not be jeopardized. Any interference, he wails, will cause him to 
lose good money he has invested. Such squeals should be sweet 
music to those attempting to provide decent surroundings for their 
families. Vigorous community action that will not only impair, 
but will totally destroy, the investment is the surest preventive of 
further insults. ‘The solar plexus of these promoters is located in 
the pocketbook and they will always succumb to a blow there. 
The more of them that can be bankrupted, the fewer recruits will 
appear to take their places. 

While the great majority of showmen and the like are amenable 
to public opinion, if it is adequately represented, a minority must 
be dealt with by legal measures. A difficulty often arises in the 
proposition that what is objectionable for one audience is useful 


200 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


for another. A group of physicians may discuss or publish ma- 
terial that would only disturb a group of high school boys who lack 
the background that the physicians have to connect up this material 
with other knowledge. A nude woman may pose without offense 
for a group of artists when she could not, in the present unregener- 
ate state of public opinion, pose on a crowded street corner. ‘The 
law fully recognizes this common-sense distinction, and it would 
give little trouble if it were not pushed too far by those who have 
no legitimate excuse for using it. Everyone knows the type of 
“artist”? who has no interest in art that wears clothes,* and the type 
of ‘‘scientist’’ who is devoted to the study of “Sex,” but knows 
nothing of the normal phenomena that make up 99 percent of 
sexual life. Neither art nor science is benefited by the activity of 
these parasites, and the professions themselves should take steps 
to purge their ranks of those who are merely using them as a cloak 
for their own purposes. 


8 A large proportion of creative artists notoriously does not conform to ac- 
cepted standards of conduct, and it has sometimes been supposed that the 
atmosphere in which they are educated is to blame. Such an explanation puts 
the cart before the horse. The fact is that many, if not all, people have within 
them some potentiality for creative art, but in most it fails of expression be- 
cause of the repressions, suppressions, resistances, and inhibitions that form so 
large (and within limits, so necessary) a part of the human mental equipment. 
One can not become a creative artist unless one lacks these hindrances to a large 
extent, but their lack is almost certain to be manifested in conduct as well as 
in other forms of self-expression. 

Beyond this, there are various special factors in particular cases. Actors, for 
example, have from time immemorial been prone to deviate from the standards 
of sexual conduct. Their frequent travels are unfavorable to family life; in 
addition, the constant pretence of “‘making love” on the stage tends to form 
action patterns in the mind that inevitably guide conduct off the stage. 

All this is not to argue that artists should be regarded as in a class by them- 
selves, living above all ordinary rules of conduct. But it does argue that there 
is a price to be paid for creative work. Society decides whether the price is too 
high for the work. Often it is; and then an Oscar Wilde or a Stanford White 
dies in disgrace. Undue tolerance of the eccentricities of creative artists pro- 
duces an infestation of posers and fakers, of hobohemians, Greenwich Villagers, 
and movie extras, whose only claim to be considered artists is the irregularity 
of their matings. 


PUBLIC OPINION 201 


All this does not mean any objection to frankness and plain 
speaking on any subject. Indeed, much plainer speaking than is 
now customary would be beneficial. Was it Confucius who said 
that if things were always called by their right names, most of the 
evils in the world would disappear? It is the euphemy, the repre- 
sentation of evil things as attractive, that is harmful. If a prosti- 
tute were always called a prostitute, whether she be a penniless 
street walker or a Madame de Pompadour, instead of being referred 
to as a light o’ love, fille de jote, fair but frail charmer, or what not, 
the effect on public opinion would be salutary. The same holds 
true of all other evil conditions which interfere with the normal 
functioning of the family. 

No one objects to plain speaking so long as it is in the right place. 
The desire of modern young people to get rid of cant, hypocrisy, 
and outworn conventions is one of the most hopeful things in 
civilization. But more pains must be taken to distinguish between 
these things and fundamental biological requirements. It is a 
pity that any one should be so ill-educated as to look at matters 
rooted in the deepest biological facts, in the depths of woman’s 
nature or in the inevitable course of evolution, and pronounce them 
mere conventions, tyrannies of man-made society, or fossil customs 
of a priest-ridden civilization. 

A crucial instance is furnished from time to time when some 
prominent man goes off with a woman who is not his wife. The 
Russian writer Maxim Gorki came to the United States some years 
ago with a mistress who was, in accordance with the law, refused 
admission at Ellis Island. Votaries of Personal Liberty promptly 
grew raucous, but the response of almost every class of society, 
from the President down, was equally prompt and decisive. Mr. 
Gorki finally came into the country, leaving his mistress behind, 
only to find himself generally ostracised, until he returned hastily 
to his native land. 

Another illustration is furnished now and then when some pro- 
fessional man, perhaps of international note, goes off with a soul- 
mate, is dismissed from his position, and finds his professional 
career blighted if not wholly ruined. Many well-meaning persons 


202 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


have deplored these incidents, arguing that these men could have 
done much for the advancement of science and the progress of 
civilization, and that to put an end to this possibility, by ostracism, 
shows a strange blindness of society to its own best interests, or 
such a lack of perspective as leads one to cut off one’s nose to spite 
one’s face. 

Such superficial comments wholly miss the real significance of 
these incidents, which I have here recalled because it is highly 
important that their significance be understood. In thrusting 
out from its precints these men of great ability, society is not neces- 
sarily passing judgment on the motives that led to their actions. 
Individually, they may have been wholly justified in their own 
eyes, or in the eyes of thosé most familiar with the facts. But the 
outstanding fact is that monogamy represents an adaptation of 
society—that is, a condition necessary to promote growth and 
harmony; an adaptation that has been developed during and has, 
on the whole, stood the test of hundreds of thousands of years. 
It is of incomparably greater importance to society that monogamy 
be maintained than it is that any one man, no matter how great 
his achievements, should continue to practice his profession. 
The extrusion of deviates from its ranks is part of the price that 
society pays for maintaining an institution of transcendent value, 
and no one with an evolutionary point of view will suppose for a 
moment that the price is too great. Evolution can not go on 
without the sacrifice of some—indeed, of many—individuals. 
The more primitive and bloody methods of evolution which pre- 
vailed in an earlier age, and which were accompanied by the sudden 
death of deviates from the standard, have been largely set aside 
in favor of more rational and less violent methods. Nowadays 
the man who does not conform to the necessary standards is usu- 
ally not killed (barring occasional enforcement of ‘‘the unwritten 
law’’—an enforcement which is in some ways salutary, even though 
not approvable in principle); he is merely pushed aside, ostracised, 
cast out of the social body. Disinterested persons, while regretting 
that there should be deviations that must thus be dealt with, should 
be glad that when they occur, they are so dealt with; while the 


PUBLIC OPINION 203 


individual at fault may well rejoice that he was not born in an 
earlier age, when he and his consort might have been buried alive 
together. 

Scientifically, there is no room for a plea that the hostile attitude 
of society toward those who break the most important mores 
should be relaxed. If the mores are out of date, they should be 
changed on the basis of research and adequate evidence; but so 
long as they stand, it is too much to ask that any strong and 
healthy society shall consent to commit suicide by tolerating 
anarchy. ‘There are already plenty of illustrations in history, 
of the results that follow such a course; and while it is doubtless 
true in detail that history never repeats itself, yet similar causes 
will tend to produce similar effects. It is no coincidence that the 
downfall of both Greece and Rome was preceded by a laxity of the 
marriage mores, and a disregard for the interest of the family. 

In this connection the responsibility of each individual is heavy: 
(a) to arrive at sound standards of conduct, (b) to adhere to them 
personally, and (c) to stand up for them publicly and make his 
influence felt. The last-named obligation is the one on which I 
wish particularly to insist in this section. Even trivial actions 
have an importance, the extent of which can not be foreseen. The 
man who tells, or approves the telling of, a joke which justifies 
marital infidelity is doing just as much harm as is the woman who 
allows her children to get their standards of home-life from the 
so-called funny papers. Motion pictures too often bear out | 
H. L. Mencken’s cynical contention that from them children can 
learn only patriotism and adultery. Parents who tolerate such 
things can not expect their children to do otherwise. Influential 
people who tolerate them can not expect that the crowd will not 
follow their example. 

After reproduction and fighting and hunger, there are few 
motives stronger in human life than the desire to think well of one’s 
self, and to be well thought of by others. It is to this motive that 
appeal must be made, for the conservation of the family. Most 
people are necessarily followers, not leaders; the few who by acci- 
dent or merit are leaders therefore have a double obligation to 


204 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


stand on the biological side of all issues which involve family life; 
for their actions will be read about, watched, commented on, and 
consciously or unconsciously imitated by thousands. The crowd 
will speak respectfully of family life, if those after whom it patterns 
speak respectfully of family life; on the other hand, it will think 
prostitution necessary and adultery amusing if its models take that 
attitude. For this, among other reasons, law enforcement and 
social ostracism, as well as more constructive measures, should 
begin at the top, not the bottom, of the social scale. 


II. ECONOMIC REFORMS 


In the establishment and maintenance of a family, dollars and 
cents frequently cast the deciding vote. They have a voice in 
man’s or woman’s decision to marry, in the first place. After that, 
the family’s resources, its standard of living, and its hope of provid- 
ing for old age, largely govern the number of children born and 
play a significant, though minor, part in determining the fate of the 
children, once they have come into the world.! 

Except among people who face actual starvation, it is true that 
almost anyone can afford children if he wants to—it merely means 
giving up something else. Most of the people who economize by 
giving up progeny would not suffer from privation, if they had 
offspring, nor would these children have to go without anything 
necessary to their comfort. The statement of well-to-do people 
that they can not afford children means simply that they are un- 
willing to deprive themselves of certain luxuries for the sake of 
children, or that they could not continue to live in the same extrava- 
gant style as their neighbors or associates, if they had children. 

Here is evidently one way in which a reform is possible. People 
can cultivate simpler tastes. 

But this is not enough. In many circles, a certain standard of 


1 Within limits the care that a child gets is dependent on the ability of his 
parents to pay for care. This item, which has been exaggerated grossly by 
many writers, and in nearly all the investigations of the United States Children’s 
Bureau, must be interpreted in the light of two facts. First, the multiplication 
of charitable agencies in large cities often ensures to the children of the poor 
better care than those of the moderately well-to-do can receive. Secondly, the 
income of the parents reflects to some extent their inherent capacity, intelli- 
gence, health, and the like; so that the greater infant mortality rate sometimes 
found among families where the income is small reflects to a corresponding ex- 
tent the ignorance, incompetence, and physical defects of the parents, rather 
than the size of their bank balance. It is an error to suppose that by doubling 
the wages of all tenement-house dwellers, one could cut down the infant mor- 
tality among them by a corresponding amount. 


205 


206 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


living is practically obligatory. A man can not hold his position 
unless he and his wife conform with that standard. Moreover, in 
every superior family it is desirable that the children have, not 
merely a bare margin of subsistence, but every advantage possible. 
There is, then, real need for measures that will-aid families with 
children. 

As has been shown previously, the birth rate tends to diminish 
as the family income increases. ‘The more money a man has, the 
fewer children. An ideal solution of the problem would be such 
changes as would (a) make people’s incomes represent accurately 
their real value to the community, and (b) would make them bear 
and rear a number of children proportional to their income. Such 
an ideal solution will never be reached, but it is worth a moment’s 
consideration. 

(a) Every movement in the direction of social justice tends to 
favor the more accurate adjustment of income to real value. All 
laws to prevent sharp and fraudulent practice in business, and 
providing for truthful advertising, weighing, and measuring, for 
instance, help in this direction. Heavy taxes on unapprovable 
luxuries and on large inheritances act in the same direction. At 
present a man of mediocre intellect and superior physique may, 
as a result of a 40-minute prize fight, make enough money to pay 
the salaries of an entire college faculty for a year. A man with 
intellect and physique both of mediocre quality, but endowed with 
a certain amount of avarice, unscrupulousness, ferocity, and 
tenacity, can gain an equal amount of money by performances of 
a different kind that are even less useful socially. Any measures 
that tend to eliminate such discrepancies will benefit the family 
indirectly. To go into further details under this head would, 
however, be to write a treatise on economics. 

(b) The birth rate can be made to correspond more nearly to the 
income, by a decrease in the families of the poor and an increase 
in the families of the well-to-do. Such a change could conceivably 
be brought about by education, the pressure of public opinion, 
and in general all the measures which have been discussed in this 
volume. | 


ECONOMIC REFORMS 207 


Within narrow limits, then, some approach may be made toward 
the ideal solution mentioned above. 

Most suggested solutions, however, have proceeded from the 
opposite side and, assuming that the number of children produced 
is one of the indications of a family’s value to the community, 
have attempted to devise means for making the income correspond 
to the number of children, rather than, as was suggested above, to 
make the number of children correspond to a readjusted income. 

The premise, that children form one of the real evidences of a 
family’s value to the community, is sound within certain limits. 
It is particularly unassailable when the comparison is made inside 
of any given class. For the sake of illustration one might take all 
postmasters, or all railway engineers, or all bankers: on the average 
it would be safe to say that those with good-sized families are worth 
more to the nation than those who are unmarried or who have in- 
adequate families. Within a given class, therefore, any measure 
which tends to redistribute income on the basis of size of family is, 
up to a certain point, eugenic. But if the distribution is made 
more broadly, on the basis of the entire population, the procedure 
becomes questionable. 

It must be admitted that many of the proposals for increasing 
the birth-rate through economic measures show a pathetically 
trustful faith in the omnipotence of the dollar. Just as wealth is 
commonly supposed to open all doors to its possessor; just as the 
successful pork packer or war profiteer feels no doubt of his ability 
to purchase culture, social position, a noble (though somewhat 
sketchy) pedigree relating him to William the Conqueror, and a 
duke for a son-in-law; so, if the state desires an increased output 
of children, it is told that it has only to go into the open market 
and bid for them. Are more babies needed? Your esteemed in- 
quiry received and contents noted, and in reply would say, make 
the price right and said items will be delivered C.O.D., 280 days 
after receipt of order. 

Surely the population problem is not quite so simple as that! 

It may be true that the state can secure quantity production 
any time it is willing to outbid competitors. But quantity produc- 


208 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


tion of children is the last thing that is needed in modern civiliza- 
tion. 

There is, however, another and more sympathetic side to the 
picture. If parents want children, but are hindered from having 
them by the existence of artificial, economic barriers, the state may 
well remove the barriers, if it is possible to do so, and if it appears 
that eugenically superior parents will be benefited more than will 
the inferior. 

Broadly speaking, it may be said that proposals to readjust the 
birth-rate by punishing the childless offer little hope of success. 
Such measures were tried in imperial Rome, without avail, and they 
are no more likely to succeed now. 

Again, attempts to alter the birth-rate by bribing the childless 
are likewise fallacious. 

It is proper, as was noted above, to remove hindrances to child- 
bearing, in certain cases. But in any case, it is likely that the most 
valuable result of most economic reforms will be indirect, not direct. 
Any financial relief that is given will be tangible; but the important 
result would be, through such reforms, to make fathers and mothers 
feel that they occupy an important place in the world; that they are 
recognized by the state, and by their fellow-citizens, as having done 
something worth while; that they are good citizens, and universally 
acknowledged to be such. Economic measures of even minor 
direct influence may be of real value, in this indirect way. 

With these principles in mind, the following attempts to solve 
the population problem in one way or another are particularly 
worthy of thought. 


THE MINIMUM WAGE 


1. The concept of the Minimum Wage is a vague one, used in 
various senses. In one sense it is purely an individual wage. 

Some schemers for a reorganized society propose a “‘pauper’s 
wage,’ a pittance large enough to keep a man alive, if no more. 
Thus, even an individual who did not care to work would not have 
to starve to death. 

But the doctrine which commonly goes under the simple title 


ECONOMIC REFORMS 209 


of Minimum Wage is in reality a proposal to subsidize families. 
It provides that every laborer shall receive income sufficient to 
support not only himself but a wife and at least three children. 
It is assumed that this is the average size of family, and it is urged 
that society owes to every family at least enough money to keep 
its members alive. 

Such a theory will not stand analysis. In the first place, the 
average worker does not have a family of this size to support. 
Paul H. Douglas has calculated that such a wage would mean 
supporting 47,000,000 fictitious dependents in the United States; 
while if “‘“equal pay for equal work” brings women the same wage, 
it will mean supporting some 70,000,000 imaginary persons. 

Obviously, neither industry nor eugenics can tolerate such a 
fiction. To make pay apply to size of family, society must proceed 
directly by counting heads, not indirectly by hypothesis. 

But beyond this, is it desirable that society give every man the 
means of supporting a wife and three children? Certainly not. 
In many cases it is desirable that he be unable to support them,— 
if it appears, for instance, that the children he would have would 
be a detriment to the state, rather than a gain. 

Whatever its purely economic merits may be, the idea of a mini- 
mum wage as commonly understood is directly opposed to every 
aspect of a sound theory of population. Free competition may be 
tempered to the extent of furnishing every man enough charity 
to feed him, if he requires charity for that purpose, and to feed 
his family, if he already has one. But charity which will subsidize 
him to increase his family, if he is too inefficient to support it by his 
own exertions, would be of little benefit to the family or the state. 


THE FAMILY WAGE 


2. The Family Wage idea has spread rapidly in Europe since 
the war. It existsina great variety of forms, the essential theory 
of all of which is that a father is rendering certain services to his 
country, beyond his mere daily labor, and that in addition to fair 
remuneration for his daily work he should be given extra remuner- 
ation for this other service, in proportion to the amount of service 
rendered. 


210 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


Among the countries in which this system has been put into 
effect on a large or small scale are Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Czecho-Slovakia, Denmark, France, Germany, Holland, Norway, 
Poland, and Switzerland. In some countries it is confined, or 
nearly limited, to state employes. 

The practice is more widespread in France than in any other 
nation. There (1924) some 3,000,000 workers are covered by it, 
in many different forms. The law of July 22, 1923, provides an 
annual allowance of f.90 ($17.37 at par, but at that time actually 
only $5 or $6) for each child under 13 years of age in excess of three 
in the family. Beyond this, various groups of employers have 
made special provision for payments, by forming pools in which 
all ina given industry, or branch of an industry, contribute. These 
are so arranged that the burden is equalized, and no employer is 
tempted for his own advantage to discriminate against married 
men, when taking on new hands. There is no uniform system of 
payments in the employers’ funds. Among the methods of dis- 
tribution are: 

(a) Increased allowance for second and subsequent children. 

(b) Same allowance for each child. 

(c) No allowance for first child, or first two children, but high 
allowances for subsequent ones. 

(d) Same (rather low) allowance for first two children, increased 
allowance for subsequent ones. 

(e) High allowance for first, or first two, and lower for subse- 
quent children. 

Allowances have ranged from f.10 to f£.50 per month for the 
first child, and from f.5 to f.100 for the fourth. 

Inasmuch as all children, and all families, differ in quality, and 
therefore in value to the state, it is clear that any system which 
pays an equal sum for all children is merely a baby bounty, and 
that it will tend on the whole to produce quantity at the expense 
of quality. Such a system has no place in any program for the 
conservation of the family. 

Again, any system that differentiates between the first born 
and the later born is apparently nothing but an attempt to favor 


ECONOMIC REFORMS 211 


mass production. It is likely to produce mass but not much else, 
particularly as the bounties given are in most cases mere pittances, 
which could be of real value only to families at the bottom of the 
social scale. 

On the other hand, any system which recognizes inherent differ- 
ences by making the allowance depend both on the size of the 
family and on the basal pay of the father is open to fewer objec- 
tions. It is one of the fairest ways that can be devised for sub- 
sidizing the family. If, for example (to take purely arbitrary 
figures), a man’s pay were increased by 20 percent on marriage, 
and by an additional 10 percent on the birth of each child, the 
difference in the amount received by a $2 a day man and a $10 a 
day man, each with a wife and four children, would be marked. 

Unfortunately, the introduction of such differential treatment 
is usually opposed by the inefficient who, being a great majority, 
have the most voting power, and have to be placated by politicians 
who would stay in office. It is, however, in effect among civil 
service employes in Holland, and in a few other groups. 

The payment of family wages by the state to all workers is 
justified on the ground that families of the right kind are necessary 
to the state, and that the superior man and wife who produce 
four or five children have rendered a service to the state which is 
as much worth compensation as any other contribution to public 
welfare. 

The payment by industrial employers to their own workmen is 
justified not only by patriotism, but on the ground that the pro- 
duction of children means the production of suitable labor, and 
that the family man is a more dependable, permanent man than 
is the single worker. In France, says Mary T. Waggaman, “‘With- 
out pretending to relieve the state from its duty toward large 
families, heads of firms and corporations consider that the interest 
they manifest in improving family life ought to promote industrial 
prosperity. Just as they insure against fire and accidents they 
also consider as part of their expenses a sum for the purpose of 
establishing greater labor stability. In thus interesting themselves 
in the workers’ families and contributing to the physical and mental 


212 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


development of the workers’ children, these employers hope tu 
provide themselves a future superior labor reserve which will do 
away with the supplementary foreign and colonial labor to which 
they have had recourse these later years. Some of the fund mem- 
bers declare that these advantages permit them to compete favor- 
ably with districts which have not yet adopted the institution of 
family allowances.” 

The weight to be attached to these arguments will be decided 
differently by different people. I have seen no mention of the 
argument that the family man produces future consumers, and 
therefore might properly be subsidized by a corporation which 
makes its profits from selling consumers goods. 


BABY BOUNTIES 


3. Baby bounties have been dealt with incidentally under the 
preceding head. They are wrong in principle and should not be 
countenanced in any form. 


PREFERENTIAL EMPLOYMENT 


4, Preferential employment of family men is a close correlative 
of the family wage system. It might be possible to rule that in the 
civil service, for example, a position will not be given to an un- 
married man or woman, if there is available for the place a family 
man equally qualified. This would be a legitimate and useful 
procedure. 

If such preferential treatment were not accompanied by a family 
wage, there would be no reason why intelligent and public-spirited 
private employers should not adopt the same measure. It would 
cost them no more (save as industrial compensation for accidents 
is greater for a family man). If family wages were also allowed, 
a narrow-minded employer might prefer to give a vacant position 
to a bachelor, because he could be had more cheaply. 


MATERNITY BENEFITS 


5. Maternity benefits, often advocated, have been applied in 
some countries to a limited extent. When they amount to merely 


ECONOMIC REFORMS 213 


a lump sum, given every woman.at childbirth, they are only another 
name for a baby bounty. In the case of married women workers, 
payment of at least part of the normal wage during the last month 
before and the first month or two after confinement permits the 
mother to take needed rest and to get the necessary care for herself 
and her newborn child. ‘This is helpful to the individual; whether 
it is in the long run beneficial to the state depends partly on what 
kind of children such mothers produce. On the whole, such a 
system, if applied in a discriminating way, probably does more 
good than harm. , 

If applied to wage-earners, administration of a system of matern- 
ity benefits is simple, because the earning capacity of the women is 
known definitely. Many feminists, however, have proposed to 
push this idea farther, by having the state recognize childbearing 
as a service equal in value to any other and give a salary to all 
women engaged in that occupation. This at once brings difficulties 
of administration, for the great bulk of mothers, never having 
worked outside the home, have no fixed earning capacity. Pub- 
licity has been given recently to an estimate that the average farm- 
er’s wife in the United States is worth approximately $4,000 a year 
to her family, taking account of services actually rendered. While 
few intelligent farmers would think this estimate high enough, an 
attempt to remunerate the wives at this rate, when they were 
bearing children, might cause at least a mild protest from the cave- 
dwellers of the metropolis! 

Under present conditions of public sentiment and politics, it 
would certainly be impossible to get mothers graded and classified 
on the basis of their real worth to the community, and paid accord- 
ingly. Any measure that could possibly be passed would un- 
doubtedly provide only a lump sum for every mother, as is the case 
elsewhere, and would therefore be highly objectionable. 

The family wage, paid to the man of the house on the basis of a 
percentage of his own established earning capacity, achieves the 
same end, and is much more practicable. The most prevalent 
arrangement in existing, normal households is that the husband 
earns, the wife spends the family income. On the whole, this 


214 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


system seems to work well, and it is difficult to see how any other 
system can be compatible with woman’s specialization for child- 
bearing. 

MOTHERS’ PENSIONS 


6. Mothers’ pensions, applying to those who have lost their 
husbands by death or desertion, are now provided in most American 
states. They furnish a sum of from $100 to $200 per child per 
year, up to the time the children are from 14 to 18, depending 
on the state. They are therefore not strictly eugenic, but may be 
valuable in keeping children with their own mothers and out of 
institutions. 


FAMILY INSURANCE 


7. Family insurance in some form has been suggested by numer- 
ous writers, particularly in the United States by Hilda H. Noyes. 
It is argued that people insure to provide themselves with necessary 
assistance in case of accident or ill health; why not in the same 
way plan for help at time of childbirth, making small payments 
over a series of years, and withdrawing a larger sum on the birth 
of offspring? 

The suggestion has interesting possibilities, although no actuary, 
so far as I know, has yet pronounced on its practicability. 

Dr. Noyes has suggested another form of insurance in the follow- 
ing words: 

“In this country the graduates of our best universities delay 
marriage for from seven to nine years after graduation, and average 
less than two children each, although it is necessary for those who 
become parents to have over three surviving children to keep the 
stock from dying out. ‘The postponement of marriage is due, in 
the majority of cases, to insufficient income in the early years of 
becoming established in a business or professional career. ‘To 
enable these picked individuals to marry earlier why not reverse 
the ordinary plan of insurance, in which a small sum is paid into 
the company for a long series of years and at death a large sum is 
paid to relatives and friends, and in its stead let the company 
advance the large sums first, in quarterly or monthly instalments 


ECONOMIC REFORMS BIS 


for a short series of years, decreasing gradually to nothing as the 
earning capacity of the applicant increased, then let him pay into 
the company a small sum for a long series of years? The result 
would be that the aggregate of the small payments coming in would 
equal the aggregate of the large payments going out plus the neces- 
sary expense of management and allowance for failure of payment 
in case of death of applicant. A necessary feature would be the 
investigation of the mental, moral, and physical heredity and 
status of the applicant to determine the quality of the risk. If the 
plan could be made to work economically, its eugenic influence 
would be great.”’ 

She has further suggested that part of the capital necessary for 
such a scheme might be supplied by endowment from some philan- 
thropist. Andrew Carnegie provided a fund to allow certain col- 
lege professors to live comfortably in their old age. Some one 
else might well provide another fund to allow them to bring up 
children comfortably in their youth. 

Some of the difficulties of working out such a policy as this are 
obvious, but it is one of the most interesting suggestions that has 
been made in connection with the economic side of family life, and 
deserves thorough study. 

It has also been proposed that a universal and compulsory 
scheme of insurance for child-bearing be patterned on the plan of 
compulsory old-age pensions in Germany and elsewhere, the state 
providing part of the capital, the individual the rest. Any uni- 
versal and compulsory scheme, however, seems likely to be in- 
discriminate in its operation, as it would necessarily be more or less 
under political influence. Moreover, less efficient people would 
be more likely to want to get their money back by producing 
children. A plan of voluntary insurance, on the other hand, 
would be patronized only by the prudent, thrifty, and far-sighted, 
—exactly the classes whose reproduction is most desirable. 


TAXATION 


8. Taxation is now used to some extent in most countries for the 
encouragement of the family. The exemptions of the federal 


216 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


income tax in the United States are familiar to every reader who 
has a wife and children. 

As a more sweeping measure it has often been proposed to tax 
heavily all bachelors. But it is not desirable that all bachelors 
marry, still less that all have children; and any tax might have 
the tendency to force into marriage, and probable parenthood, 
those who should remain single for the good of all concerned. 
It has also been proposed to tax all childless people, whether mar- 
ried or single, with the idea that they could thus be forced to have 
children and, on the other hand, that funds from this source could 
be applied to reducing the burden of families. 

To test this measure, one should analyze childless marriages. 
Leaving out of consideration those who are physiologically infertile, 
it will be evident that most childless married couples fall into one 
of the following three classes: 

(a) Those who think that they should not have children because 
of some inherited disability—for instance, the presence of insanity 
in the ancestry. 

(b) Those who can not, or think they can not, afford to have 
children. 

(c) Those who do not want children because frivolous, selfish, 
ill-educated, or over-ambitious. 

It is generally supposed that class (b) is the largest. ‘Therefore 
the tax would fall most heavily on this class, made up of people 
who are childless merely because they think they have not the 
money at the moment to take good care of children. While they 
are enduring this situation, the tax collector arrives and informs 
them that, not having enough money to have a child right away, 
they must be mulcted of a part of the little they have—thereby 
pushing their baby still farther into the future. A valuable 
measure, indeed, for increasing the birth rate! 

As to class (c), made up of those who are merely too selfish or 
ambitious to want to be bothered with children, it is supposed that 
they might by this pecuniary pressure be forced to produce children 
as a means of reducing their tax assessments. ‘The wealthy among 


ECONOMIC REFORMS Pus 


them would certainly not be effectively influenced in this way;? 
and as for the poor climbers, sacrificing parenthood to the desire 
for a standard of living they can not afford, it is doubtful whether 
the children that they might produce under pecuniary pressure 
would be any great asset to the race. In so far as childlessness is 
due to inborn lack of parental feeling or other selfish trait, it should 
be encouraged, for the quicker such a trait is bred out of the race, 
the better. The prevalent degree of race suicide has at least one 
compensation, in that it is leading to the extinction of some family 
stocks that are inherently abnormal, yet in an earlier age would 
probably have left offspring to inherit their defect. On the other 
hand, that part of childlessness (probably a much larger part) which 
is found among people who are by nature normal and whose defects 
are due solely to education, is not a racial benefit but a racial 
disaster. 

Finally, what effect would this taxation have on class (a), the 
defectives? In so far as it worked at all, its inevitable effect would 
be to tend to make these people have children, which is exactly 
what society does not want them to do. 

It must be evident to anyone who analyzes the question more 
than superficially, that a tax on childlessness as a means for in- 
creasing the number of births of desirable children is a measure 
that would defeat its own ends. Even now, with all the maladjust- 
ments that exist, it can scarcely be doubted that the married people 
of the nation are, on the average, inherently superior in quality to 
those who have not married; and that the married people with 
children are, on the whole, superior in racial value to the childless 
married. What is needed is a revision of popular standards of 
value, and a change in public sentiment, so that the personal and 
racial advantages of a family of superior children will be more 
highly regarded. 


2 J. Swinburne has made the paradoxical proposal that a heavy tax be placed 
on children. Rich people would then have offspring as an evidence of their 
solvency, while the poor would forego this luxury. The proposal at least has 
more merit than a good many which have been made for the supposed benefit 
of the family. 


218 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


This is not to say that taxation has no place among measures 
for the conservation of the family: it has an important place, 
but it must be applied in more delicate and discriminating ways 
than are proposed in the naive plan of a general tax on the childless. 
The ultimate object (which can be attained only to a limited degree) 
must be to make income correspond more closely to the real eugenic 
and social value of the individual than it does at present; then, 
in a proper state of public opinion, people will tend to have, and 
be able to afford, children in proportion to their income and there- 
fore in proportion to their inherent eugenic worth. 

Moderate exemptions from taxation are justifiable for all married 
people—say $2,000 for a wife, and $2,000 for each child; and the 
tax should be steeply graded for incomes above something like 
$20,000, as large incomes tend to cut down childbearing by intro- 
ducing a multiplicity of competing interests and cares. Heavy 
inheritance taxes are desirable, but they should be proportioned 
not only to the amount each beneficiary receives, but also to the 
nearness of kin of the legatee (a plan already in effect in some 
states); thus a man might leave $50,000 to each of his sons and 
daughters without heavy taxation, but an old bachelor who left 
$50,000 to an adventuress or a spiritualist medium might expect 
that this sum would be much diminished before it reached its 
destination. This is the point at which society may most easily 
and usefully take a financial contribution from the childless. 
Severe taxes on unapprovable luxuries and harmful commodities 
are also useful. 

In some respects the recent trend of taxation in the United States 
has been favorable to the eugenic point of view; in others it seems 
now to be in the opposite direction. ‘Thus the demand is growing 
for a reduction in the surtaxes on large incomes, and for lower 
inheritance taxes, on the ground that such decreases are necessary 
to keep business good. 

Taxation being an economic function, the biologist is not in a 
position to do more than point out the possible results it may have 
on biological features of society. Doubtless a compromise is 
necessary between the economic and the biologic claims. If the 


ECONOMIC REFORMS 219 


reasoning in the foregoing discussion is sound, it appears that the 
state might some day find it was keeping business going at the 
expense of families. In that case, opinion (both public and expert) 
would have to decide whether it preferred to sacrifice the home to 
business, or business to the home; or whether a satisfactory adjust- 
ment of conflicting claims could be reached. 


“BACK TO THE FARM” 


9. Of all the economic measures, the “back to the farm’”’ move- 
ment is in some ways the most important. It is the birth rate in 
cities that offers the real menace to society. Country parents 
mostly still feel able to indulge the normal human inclination for 
several children. The growing industrialization of rural districts 
must therefore be watched with a jealous eye. 

The crowding of population into large cities complicates the 
situation in ways that are familiar to all. In the first place, it is 
difficult to find a satisfactory place to live, at a reasonable price, 
if one has many children. In the second place, children are a 
greater expense in the city than in the country because more is 
desired for them. The cost of food, of clothing, of servants, of 
amusements, of medical attention, all tend to be higher in the city, 
largely because of the higher standards that are maintained. In 
the third place, children can not contribute to the family as they 
do on the farm, where the girls help with the housework and the 
boys with the chores outside. The latter are non-existent and the 
former almost negligible in an apartment. In the fourth place, 
there is a greater number of competing interests in the city, all 
of them attractive, all of them consuming time if not money and 
therefore having to be balanced against children. 

Every measure that tends to make rural, or at least suburban, 
life more comfortable and accessible is indirectly a measure for the 
conservation of the family. 

In this particular, progress now seems to be fairly favorable, for 
more and more families are moving to the suburbs for the sake of 
their children, and many students foresee an era of urban decentral- 


220 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


ization, when the present anti-social aggregations of population 
will be broken up or opened out, allowing a larger proportion of 
people to live under the conditions of health, decency, and comfort 
that are necessary for the welfare of the family. 


IV. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION 


Community organizations, either existing or to be created, 
public or private, may profitably endeavor, among other things, 
to (1) provide education fitting people for family life, (2) promote 
marriage, (3) make the care of the home easier for women, (4) 
increase the reproduction of superior parents, (5) decrease that of 
inferior parents, (6) provide care for children, not only for their 
own benefit but for that of their parents, (7) augment the facilities 
for recreation for persons of all ages, and (8) repress or eradicate 
conditions that hinder the normal functioning of the family, 
particularly commercialized evils. 

Most communities are now overorganized in many respects, 
and there are organizations which deal with most of the foregoing 
topics, in one way or another. Many of these are so well estab- 
lished and known that I shall not refer to them, or at most give 
them only passing mention. 


EDUCATION FOR FAMILY LIFE 


1. Education has been dealt with at some length in Section I 
of this Part; here I will only emphasize the need of some direct 
means of education for young people who are preparing to marry 
and who have not previously had the kind of training they need. 
Most persons about to wed, particularly young women, realize 
all too keenly their lack of preparation; but there are no adequate 
facilities for remedying this. In many large cities there are schools 
of domestic science, but the hours and tuition do not always make 
these available for girls who are earning their own living. Most 
agricultural colleges give “Short Courses” in home economics, 
and these are often patronized to good effect by girls preparing to 
marry, but they again are available only to a limited number. 
Girls living at home can do much without leaving it, and it is often 
astonishing to see the zeal with which a girl who has hitherto 

221 


222 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


showed few domestic tastes will begin to assist her mother in the 
housekeeping and cooking, after she is betrothed. 

To supplement such means as these, it would seem to be entirely 
feasible to use the high schools to a greater extent for adult classes 
and night work in this field, pending the time when all girls will 
receive proper instruction as a part of their early education, and 
will not have to return, some years after leaving school, to make 
up the deficiency. Home making should be taught in every phase; 
but mothercraft,which is usually slighted, is vastly more important 
than cookery, which is usually emphasized. It is not so serious 
if a young wife feeds indigestible biscuits to her husband as if she 
feeds the same biscuits to her baby. 

While the old idea still exists, that beneficent Nature has planted 
in the minds of her children instincts which will furnish all necessary 
guidance for home-making, it is no longer held by rational people, 
and there ought to be enough of these in the United States to make 
a start in systematic education for family life outside of, or as an 
expansion of, the present school system. Austria has recently 
made provision whereby any woman who wishes to do so can get a 
diploma as a housewife, by passing examinations set by the high 
school. Apart from the usual home work and verbal and written 
examinations, there is also a practical test which deals with the 
care and education of children and includes the preparation of a 
complete meal. It is easy to imagine the development of such an 
idea along most practical and useful lines.} 

The way in which some thoughtful women regard this subject 
is illustrated by the results of a questionnaire circulated through 
the American Home department of the California Federation of 
Women’s Clubs in 1925. In answer to the question “Are you satis- 
fied with the present-day home?”’, 5 percent answered yes, 95 
percent no. 

“What, in your opinion, are the causes within the home which 


1 Something analogous might be done for fathers. The latter should have at 
least a working knowledge of household duties for use in emergency (e.g., 
childbirth, illness, holidays). Most of this can be acquired by helping mother, 
in childhood. 


COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION 223 


are responsible for its present status?” was the next question asked. 
To this the percentage of replies was: 


Lack of discipline (77 percent) 

Lack of religious training (66 percent) 

Lack of ideals (55 percent) 

Inadequate preparation for home-making (55 percent) 


Influences for good, outside the home, were ranked in the follow- 
ing order: 


. School 

. Church 

. Athletics 

. Public entertainments 
. Street companions 

. Newspapers 

. Motor travel 


TA MP WN 


The same influences were ranked as to their bad effect, in the 
following order: 


1. Street companions 
2. Newspapers 

3. Public entertainment 
4. Motor travel 

5. Athletics 


“Do you consider that the entrance of women into industry has 
lowered the standards of conduct in the home?” was answered 
yes by 48 percent, no by 19 percent, while 33 percent failed to 
answer. 

“What, in your opinion, is the most potent single factor responsi- 
ble for the shortcomings of the present-day American home?”’ 
The answers were: 


Lethargy—the ‘‘don’t care’ spirit (53 percent) 
Untrained parenthcod (50 percent) 
Economic determinism (12 percent) 


As to remedies, 71 percent of the women favored education of 
children for parenthood and home making in the public schools, 


224. THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


while 42 percent also thought that special classes in child study 
and parenthood for those already in the home would be of value. 

While this inquiry brings to light only the opinions of a single 
group, it demonstrates clearly that a body of women of superior 
education and social status sees plainly that the unsatisfactory 
position of the home is largely due to their own lack of preparation, 
and that of their husbands, for the responsibilities of home life. 

Even the most thorough curriculum of this sort would probably 
have to omit some matters of fundamental importance, particularly 
the more intimate and personal aspects of reproduction. Yet the 
matters thus omitted are in some ways more important than any 
others, and are at the bottom of most family tragedies, as I have 
pointed out in the section on Broken Homes. Matters of this 
sort should be handled by a clinic available for consultation (free, 
pay, or part pay, according to the case, as with medical clinics), 
which must be created for this purpose. Such a clinic should 
contain 2 group of specialists capable of advising on questions of 
(1) heredity and eugenics, (2) reproduction, and (3) mental hygiene. 
Probably such a clinic could be made self-supporting, or nearly so; 
but its service to the state would be so important that the state 
could well afford to endow it heavily, if that were necessary. The 
same clinic might well serve as a referee in cases of broken homes. 
There is much to be said in favor of a proposal to oblige every 
person intending to marry to present himself or herself at such a 
clinic for examination and consultation; not necessarily with a view 
to prohibiting marriage to certain classes, but with the idea that 
people who are going to marry should not be allowed to marry in 
ignorance. 

The chief obstacle at present in the way of carrying out such a 
proposal—apart from the apathy of public opinion—is that there 
are not enough qualified experts in the country to staff many such 
clinics. This is a lack that will be remedied in time,—the more so 
if a public demand for such services should be expressed. 

A modest start in the right direction has been made in a number 
of European cities, as Vienna, Hamburg, Berlin, Milan, and Dres- 
den. ‘The experiment in the last-named city is directed by Ph. 


COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION 225 


Kuhn, professor in the Hygienic Institute of the Technical High 
School there, who has furnished me with information about his 
Eheberatungsstelle (Clinic for Advice Regarding Marriage). This 
is open to all persons, for a small fee; in the case of those who 
have health insurance, the fee is paid by the insurance bureau. 
Necessary examinations are made of the individuals (usually 
married couples) who apply, and their family history is investi- 
gated. Up to the present, Dr. Kuhn says that most of the appli- 
cants fall into two groups: couples whose conjugal happiness is 
disturbed by difficulties such as mental maladjustment, homosexu- 
ality, venereal diseases, and the like; and a larger number who 
want to know whether it is desirable for them to have children, in 
view of certain conditions in the ancestry. He feels that some 
further public education will be necessary before many Germans 
realize the desirability of consulting the clinic as a preliminary to 
marriage. | 

In connection with the eugenic side of marriage, there is need 
for some registry of the facts of ancestry, as Francis Galton long 
ago pointed out. J. H. Kellogg announced the creation of a Eugen- 
ics Registry at Battle Creek, Michigan in 1914 but the plans have 
not been put into effect. William McDougall has recently called 
attention to the need again. Details are not easy to work out, 
but it appears feasible to make a start in this direction without 
great expense. Something might be done through the patriotic 
societies, which have on file thousands of pedigrees of living persons, 
and something more might be done by taking advantage of the 
physical examinations which are made by the hundred thousand 
through insurance companies, Christian Associations, schools, 
and colleges. If a few details of ancestry were added to such ex- 
aminations, and these with some of the principal data, or certain 
ratings, of the physical examinations, were placed in a public file, 
it would be possible for a woman to find out something about a man 
who was becoming attentive to her, and vice versa. 

In any event, there should be a thorough, accurate registration 
of births. In this respect the United States still stands near the 
bottom of the list of civilized nations, not far from Turkey, China, 


226 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


and Russia. Registration of finger-prints, or in the case of new- 
born babies the print of the sole of the foot, should be a part of the 
record. 

In a slightly different direction, there is urgent need of endow- 
ment for research on better methods of managing childbirth, and 
on fertility and sterility. No branch of medical science has lagged 
so far behind, during the last generation, as has obstetrics, yet it is 
the branch in which more people are personally interested than 
in any other. Every discovery which makes childbirth less painful 
will be of real value to the family. It would seem reasonable to 
ask that men and money be available for this purpose to at least 
as great an extent as for cancer research—not to say the research 
in methods of breeding plants and barnyard animals. 

In particular, obstetrics and gynecology need to be developed 
more fully on the preventive side. While this side is being stressed 
in other fields of medicine, with extraordinarily successful results, 
the specialties concerned with childbirth have tended to confine 
themselves mainly to the treatment of ill effects after they have 
arisen. ‘The campaign for pre-natal care has for the most part 
reached women in the lowest economic strata: unquestionably 
they need it, but it is often no less needed by other women. Little 
has been done to put into general effect the existing knowledge 
regarding the proper hygiene of adolescent girls—on the contrary, 
they have sometimes been encouraged to take up the same field 
sports that occupy their brothers, although there is now a growing 
reaction against this. There is room for much research and public 
education as to biological preparation for parenthood in both sexes. 


THE PROMOTION OF MARRIAGE 


2. Organization to promote marriage will suggest to most people 
the Matrimonial Agency with its Cupid’s Guide, published weekly; 
or the Lonesome Club which through want ads in the Sunday 
papers invites all strangers to come out and have an old-fashioned 
good time. Organizations which have started with the avowed 
intention of acting as matchmakers have usually been short-lived, 
due among other things to the inherent bashfulness and coyness 


COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION 227 


of the human male and female respectively, which make them 
shrink from being introduced to each other as forlorn-hope can- 
didates for conjugation. 

But there is room for effective promotion of marriage on the part 
of many media which by no means make this their ostensible object. 
Young people’s organizations in all churches, for example, are 
renowned for match-making, and as I have pointed out previously, 
marriages originating there are likely to turn out well. Every 
association which brings together young people of both sexes, of 
more or less similar tastes and backgrounds, is a potential pro- 
moter of marriage. 

On the other hand, organizations which take in large numbers of 
young people of a single sex, and herd them together in monastic 
segregation, are dangerous. Neither the Young Men’s Christian 
Association nor the Young Women’s Christian Association, as at 
present conducted, is doing its full duty to the community. Each 
tends to create, in large cities, a celibate community, escape from 
which becomes increasingly difficult as a member becomes more 
and more at home in the circle. Eventually these organizations 
may realize the necessity of joining forces in some form, if they are 
not to do their clients more harm than good. 


THE ORGANIZATION OF HOME WORK 


3. Every so often, every popular magazine carries an article 
describing some new codperative housekeeping scheme, which 
will usher in the dawn of a better era by making it possible for 
people to keep house without having to do any work. All such 
plans of which I have had any knowledge have been failures. 
Usually they try to do too much, supplying to their patrons ready- 
cooked meals, for instance, which can be procured better at a 
restaurant, and which in any case do not satisfy the ideals of home 
life that are held by most people. 

All such experiments are welcome, however, as paving the way 
for more successful measures. ‘There are some phases of house- 
keeping that appear to be suitable subjects for standardization 
and codperative effort, without in any way invading the individual- 


228 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


ity of the home. There are many others that are suitable subjects 
for systematization, simplification, elimination of waste motion, 
and the use of labor saving devices. Every improvement in this 
direction is a gain. 

Some writers, going beyond this, have asserted that housework, 
which they assume to be mere unproductive drudgery, should be 
done by the organized effort of those unable to do any higher grade 
of work. ‘Thus it is supposed that a band of able-bodied morons, 
for instance, might have a route, taking a score of homes in a neigh- 
borhood and dealing with each of them in turn, during the day. 
This score of wives would thereby be freed for other occupations. 

Several difficulties appear in all such proposals. 

1. They might be available to a limited class of city women, 
but would hardly reach any country women. ‘The latter, however, 
are the ones who have the most work to do, whereas many city 
women have little to do. 

2. Such a scheme deprives the children of what is one of their 
most valuable means of education, namely, helping their parents 
with the housework. Of course, they might also help the moron, 
but any parent will see objections to such a plan. 

It seems probable that the actual result would be to separate 
the children from this natural means of contact with the real work 
of the world, and to turn them over to their mother, or some one 
else, for artificial training and the instillation of ‘‘culture.”’ Under 
these conditions there would be danger of bringing up a large 
class of children in a sort of vacuum, and the production of a new 
group of maladjusted parasites, when society already has far too 
many such. 

One of the triumphs of the Montessori Method was a frame 
holding two pieces of cloth. One piece had an edge dotted with 
buttons. The edge opposite was embroidered with buttonholes. 
The promising pupil was given this frame and allowed to insert 
the buttons in the holes for that purpose made and provided, 
thereby acquiring invaluable training in the codrdination of eye 
and hand, not to say initiative, freedom, concentration, joy in 
creative work, muscular control, and education for the Larger 


COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION 229 


Problems of Life, and other articles too numerous to mention. 
It seems never to have occurred to some of the users of this System 
that the promising pupil might, under certain circumstances, have 
been able to acquire these same characteristics in his own home by 
putting on his own clothes and those of his younger brothers and 
sisters. Similarly one might analyze many other educational 
efforts, and find that they only attempt to do inefficiently and 
expensively what the home does naturally and well. 

3. It puts a new burden on the already overburdened husband, 
making his home and children an additional drain on his earning 
capacity, and thereby tending to discourage him in both respects. 

The remedies usually proposed for this are (i) that the wife be 
paid a salary by the state (endowment of motherhood), or (ii) that 
she go out of the home and earn money by doing some “‘higher”’ 
type of work. 

The first of these proposed remedies would necessitate drastic 
financial and economic readjustments of the state and it is doubtful 
whether it could be put into effect at the present time, even if it 
were desirable,—and, as pointed out in the preceding section, it is 
undesirable in many ways. 

The second involves consideration of the whole subject of 
woman’s work outside the home—a topic far too large to be covered 
as an incidental here. Yet it is impossible to avoid at least sug- 
gesting some of the salient points, as a guide to thought. 

A few enthusiasts have suggested that all women be “‘liberated’’ 
to work outside their own homes, their families being cared for 
by some one else. But as this policy, if widely applied, suggests 
the conditions on that historic island where all the inhabitants lived 
by taking in each other’s washing, most advocates of women’s 
industrialization have held that women should be trained both for 
home and for outside work, and should do the latter at periods 
when they are not called upon to do the former. While it is ad- 
mitted that woman’s primary duty is the care of her own children, 
it is held that the following classes of women could properly take 
an active part, outside of their homes, in the routine work of the 
world: 


230 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


(a) The defective woman, who must not bear children. 

(b) The genius, whose talents are so valuable to the world that 
the loss of her children would not be as great as the loss of her 
other creative work. 

(c) The girl before marriage. 

(d) The young wife, before the arrival of her first baby. 

(e) The middle aged woman, whose children have grown up and 
left home. : 

A brief analysis of each of these cases will serve to bring out the 
realities. 

(a) This is the simplest case of all. The woman with defective 
heredity, or some other handicap which bars her from normal 
family life, is unquestionably in a better position to have a career, 
than is any other, and such work offers the best use of her energies, 
in most cases. 

(b) It can not be admitted, however, that the possession of 
genius, or what a girl or her friends suppose to be genius, is a 
justification for the abandonment of motherhood. I have dis- 
cussed this point in dealing with celibacy (Part II, Section J), 
and need not repeat here. 

(c) Girls who have completed their education and are waiting to 
marry make up the bulk of the women workers of America. It is 
generally known that one woman in every four (11 or 12 millions 
in all) is now gainfully employed outside the home. Most of these 
are single women (probably not one wife in 15 is gainfully employed 
outside her home), and four-fifths or more will marry within a few 
years. Girls at this age offer a problem to their parents in many 
cases. The great bulk of the industrial processes carried on in the 
average American home a century ago, or even half a century ago, 
has gone, never to return. The mothers therefore have less to do 
than formerly; the daughters, who formerly helped their mothers, 
have little or nothing to do. They stop school early to seek occu- 
pation, and leave the home to go into factories, offices, laundries, 
restaurants, department stores, and class rooms; expecting to 
stay only a few years, at most. 

It can hardly be said that the influence of this period is favorable 


COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION 231 


to future family life. Warren S. Thompson has emphasized this 
point in some detail. The occupations which these girls follow 
are, for the most part, largely mechanical; they take little interest 
in them, regarding them as necessary evils to earn money for the 
family or for luxuries; they intend to marry as soon as possible and 
therefore have no incentive to develop responsibility or self-reli- 
ance. ‘They never learn to regard work as the normal and proper 
condition of life: rather it represents to them an evil from which 
they must escape through the door of matrimony. ‘Such qualities 
as patience, foresight, economy, good taste, and adaptability— 
essentials to a happy life under all conditions—are not to be ac- 
quired with the taking of marriage vows; they must be developed 
slowly through the years. . . . . The work of these girls not 
only does little to help them develop such qualities, but often 
actually aids in developing other traits of character which unfit 
them for home life, e.g., carelessness, shirking, selfishness, irre- 
sponsibility, and vulgarity. The woman who looks upon her daily 
life in the home as she looked upon her day’s work in the factory 
or store before she was married is certain to find little there which 
will compensate her for raising a family. When this attitude 
toward the home exists, when all the good things of life are thought 
to lie outside the daily routine of home life, family limitation will 
be practiced if the woman knows how,” and the influence of this 
particular home will not be favorable to any one concerned. 

Encouragement of girls’ work at this period can, therefore, not 
be given. A further difficulty is that the most intelligent and 
efficient girls are the ones most likely to get ahead in their work, 
and therefore under the most temptation to remain in it perma- 
nently, abandoning marriage or motherhood. Yet these are the 
ones whose motherhood is most desirable. In any event, there- 
fore, girls working at this period of their lives should understand 
that they are not taken on permanently; and business success is 
for them not desirable, since it encourages celibacy. Business 
success for young men, on the contrary, encourages marriage. 

(d) The idea that the young wife, before the arrival of her first 
baby, has a period of leisure when she can profitably work outside 


232 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


the home, is largely false and harmful. At the beginning, most 
girls have plenty to do, adjusting themselves to a new status. Any 
worth-while opportunity for work can be got only through post- 
ponement of the first pregnancy, and such postponement for more 
than a year is harmful, both mentally and physically. 

(e) The middle-aged woman whose children have left the par- 
ental home is in a more favorable condition to make a contribution 
outside. Indeed, of the five classes here mentioned, she is the 
most favorably situated. She has in many cases leisure, experi- 
ence, and a mature outlook on life that particularly fits her to be 
useful; and, as suggested earlier, she might well take up a large 
part of the elementary teaching which is now done by girls in 
class (c). , 

If the foregoing considerations are generally well based, one must 
conclude that there is less opportunity than is sometimes supposed, 
for an extension of gainful work by women outside the home, if 
the interests of the latter are to be conserved. 7 

Finally, it must be said in candor that there is a certain amount 
of mere cant in the plea that women are now slaves to household 
drudgery. There are many such, but there are also many who have 
a larger degree of leisure than has ever been possessed by any 
women in the world, even those in an aristocratic society based on 
slave labor. When it comes to housekeeping for a family of two 
in a small apartment, any honest observer must admit that the 
work is light enough at worst, and that no one except the hope- 
lessly uneducated housewife can complain that she is so held down 
by her domestic duties that she has no time for self-improvement. 
And in fact, most of the complaint about domestic slavery, when 
not the merest stereotyped broadcasting of paid (and unmarried) 
propagandists, represents only the whine of the inadequate wife 
who thinks she should have a servant to help her open the packages 
she brings home from the delicatessen store twice a day. 

Much of the complaint is based on conditions that have long 
since been remedied and are now wholly imaginary. Knitting 
socks for a husband, or rendering fat to make soap, might now be 
considered wasteful occupations for most women (desirable as they 


COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION 233 


may have been in a primitive community); but what woman now 
does them? But personal care of a home, not only to safeguard 
the inmates’ health, but still more to safeguard the spiritual 
values—what substitute is available for this? 

With due recognition of injustices that have occurred in the past, 
which are now thoroughly exposed and mostly on the way to cor- 
rection, is it not time to protest that a good deal of the cut-and- 
dried agitation against woman’s fate in a man-made world has 
become obsolete and hardly in good taste? It is privately re- 
pudiated by a great majority of women, but they do not like to 
speak out. If the truth must be told, the fact is that most men 
have to work during nearly all of their lives, and the majority of 
them work hard, to support a family. The ordinary man does not 
spend much time bewailing this cross. If he does, he is properly 
despised. He is not lionized for getting up at a men’s club and 
mourning over the hard lot of his brethren who have to slave all 
day long at a menial task because baby needs shoes. In some 
important respects, he has the worst of the bargain, for his work is 
usually routine drudgery, whereas the work of caring for children, 
if approached with proper preparation, is the most fascinating work 
in the world. Although he is largely cut off from this, he recog- 
nizes that biological specialization gives him his own part to play. 
The great majority of inarticulate, civilized women feel instinc- 
tively, I think, just as savage women do, that their mission is the 
greater. Many of the rebels deserve psychoanalysis rather than 
admiration. 

Any improvements in civilization that give women more time 
to devote to the improvement of themselves and of their husbands 
and children will be desirable, if the time is used wisely for those 
purposes. But until the education of women is much improved, 
such changes should not be made too rapidly. If increased leisure 
for the married woman merely means that much more time to be 
killed by inane amusements and competitive extravagance, it will 
be a great hindrance to the development of wholesome family life. 
Many ill-educated wives would be better off, and the community 
would be vastly better off, if they had more drudgery to do than 


234 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


they now have. The plea of women that they be freed for other 
occupations will receive more attention when they show their 
willingness to employ their freedom to better advantage than many 
of them do now. 

The true direction of improvement is not so much along the line 
of decreasing the mother’s personal attention to the home, as of 
increasing the father’s personal attention to it. 

Every effort should be made, however, to have homemaking and 
motherhood put on a sounder basis in public estimation. Cer- 
tainly the occupation of home maker should be recognized by the 
Census as on a par with any, and in every other connection where 
occupation is taken into account, great care should be exercised 
to see that this one is treated with the dignity and honor to which 
it is entitled. 

FOR MORE CHILDREN 


4, Organization to increase directly the reproductivity of 
superior families might aid such families by rewarding them with 
money or with honor. 

Financial rewards have been discussed in the preceding section. 
They might take the form of endowment, of state subsidy, of insur- 
ance, or several others. 

Efforts have been made in France and elsewhere to give particu- 
lar honors to the parents of large and worthy families. Obviously, 
this sort of thing must be done subtly, or it may become ludicrous 
and offensive. 

Something might be accomplished to foster the ideals of family 
life by awarding prizes for works of art—painting, sculpture, drama, 
and fiction—which were judged to be most successful in holding 
up high ideals tothisend. Any one who takes the trouble to search 
for conspicuous examples of this sort will be surprised to find how 
rare they are. If the drama or novel does not end with the be- 
trothal, it commonly finds the misadventures of married life more 
interesting than the happiness thereof; while pictorial art is still 
so much under the sway of the Isis-Madonna tradition that fathers 
get scant recognition. 

Pride of ancestry is often a stimulus to reproduction, and the 


COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION 235 


study of genealogy is valuable for this reason. The numerous 
patriotic societies all serve a useful purpose, but the most desirable 
form of pedigree-study is that which has a eugenic basis, and 
concerns itself specifically with the inherited traits of the ancestors. 
Edmund Burke remarked that ‘Those who do not look backward 
to ancestry will never look forward to posterity.”” Family tradi- 
tion has a great value. Permanence is essential to such tradition. 
One of the strong arguments against broken homes, and against 
temporary, free love matings, is that they destroy such tradition, 
or prevent its growth, and thereby deprive the family of one of its 
best supports. What sense of dignity and civic worth has a sterile 
free-lover, as compared with the mother or father of a successful 
family? 

The frequent moves of American families into new houses or 
new localities have also tended to destroy family continuity and 
thereby hinder family conservation. This incessant moving, 
which is one of the national characteristics, is due to (a) inherent 
nomadism, evidenced in the first place by the fact that the ancestors 
of all white Americans of the present generation left their own 
homes to come to the New World; and (b) to the great new oppor- 
tunities for gain, constantly opening up. As the latter diminish 
with the appropriation of natural resources and the growth of 
population, the nomadic impulse will get less opportunity for 
expression. 

At the behest of women seeking to get for their sex its full share 
of control over the home, legislation has been adopted or proposed 
in a number of countries, which attempts to apportion definitely 
the family authority. In the patriarchal family the will of the 
father was obeyed unquestioningly. ‘The movement here discussed 
proposes to recognize that father and mother have an equal right 
to control family life, whether it be the discipline of children, the 
place where the family shall live, or the scale of expenditure. 

In principle, this is sound enough, and the principle is followed 
in most homes, plans being discussed and decisions made jointly. 
When the two parents differ, a compromise must be reached on 
some basis, unless one of the two is willing to give in for the sake of 
harmony. 


236 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


While there are some families in which the father has undue 
influence, and probably fully as many in which the mother has 
undue influence, the system of discussion and compromise seems 
to about as satisfactory as could well be expected. But it is not 
satisfactory to the reformers, who ask for laws that will refer 
parental differences of opinion to the courts, which will then act 
as arbiter. Various proposals of similar intent will occur to the 
reader who has followed the course of domestic legislation in 
recent years. A bill introduced by women deputies in the Austrian 
parliament (1925) provided that a child might, at the age of 14, 
petition the court to study for a profession it preferred, if its wishes 
did not coincide with the plans its parents had made for it. 

While the effect of laws of this type can not be determined 
definitely without experiment, there is every reason to regard 
them all with distrust. One of the causes of the decline of the 
birth-rate among superior families is the weakening of the family 
as an institution, which has resulted from the invasion of its func- 
tions by the state. Nothing could be more mischievous in this 
connection than an invasion of family discipline by the state. 
Experience indicates that the strong, healthy, self-perpetuating 
family is the family that has unity, that is an organic whole. The 
attempt to disrupt it still further by encouraging a 14-year-old 
boy to appeal to the court, if his parents’ plans for his future do 
not correspond with his own ambition to be a cowboy or a big- 
league pitcher, will commend itself to few thoughtful students. 
Self-respecting parents will not run to a justice of the peace and 
ask him to decide their quarrels over family matters; others should 
not be encouraged to do so. If parents can not agree privately 
on what is for the benefit of their children, the interposition of a 
court is likely to help them little; and it is certain to diminish what 
little respect the ultra-modern child still retains for parental 
authority. 


FOR FEWER CHILDREN 


5. To decrease the reproduction of inferior families, clinics which 
could teach methods of contraception have been most widely advo- 


COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION 237 


cated. Every possible use should be made of this means; some of 
its limitations have been mentioned previously. Since many 
parents can not be trusted, because of their lack of self-control 
and foresight, to limit their families voluntarily, the most effective 
means would be to sterilize one of them by a surgical operation. 
Such an operation performed on the mother requires the opening 
of the abdomen, and at once involves expense and danger. Ster- 
ilization by X-rays has sometimes been recommended, but has been 
found so far to be unreliable and dangerous, resulting sometimes not 
in infertility but in the birth of defective children. An operation 
on the father would be relatively easy, inexpensive, and without 
danger, and represents probably the only effective method of birth 
control for this part of the community. Whether public opinion 
is yet ready to sanction the widespread, voluntary application of 
such a measure remains to be seen. 

In any case it should be applied, for reasons mentioned in 
Part II, Section XI, only to parents who are relatively responsible. 
For the grossly defective and extremely inferior, farm colonies 
with segregation of the sexes offer more hope of real and 
immediate accomplishment. ‘These colonies can be made self- 
supporting or more, if properly planned and managed. ‘They can 
perform a great deal of useful work for the community and furnish 
their members with a much happier life than they would ever find 
if left free to compete with normal people. Some conspicuously 
successful examples are to be found in New York, New Jersey, and 
elsewhere. 


CARE OF CHILDREN 


6. Country children have plenty of room for play, plenty of 
occupation of the kind that educates, and usually brothers and 
sisters as associates. If the parents want to go somewhere, the 
children are left at home safely in the charge of the oldest girl, or 
else are bundled into the automobile and taken along. 

The city child has almost none of these advantages. His play- 
ground is the fire escape, the alley, or a little strip of sidewalk; 
he has nothing to do; usually not enough brothers and sisters to 


238 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


play with; and he is a constant source of anxiety to his parents. 
One of the serious drawbacks to this life is that the city child, sur- 
rounded by thousands of other children, is in real danger of being 
brought up without enough normal contacts with suitable children 
of his own age. 

An extension of the system of day nurseries, playgrounds, and 
kindergartens, is the remedy most often proposed. ‘This, it is said, 
would give these children the necessary companionship, and would 
also free their mothers’ time to some extent for other occupations, 
of which every city offers such a tempting array. 

Such a solution is probably the only one feasible in certain parts 
of the city population, but it has serious drawbacks. Reasons have 
already been given against removing the child too long from its 
home environment and turning it over to “the whole colorless and 
indifferent crowd of total strangers and mechanical mercenaries.” 
From a broader point of view, the extension of such facilities must 
be watched with care, lest it end in being merely another burden 
on the superior part of the population. If these institutions could 
be made merely a training school where young women might serve 
an apprenticeship while preparing for marriage, many of the evils 
attending them would be eliminated. What more often happens 
is the establishment of a system that is less admirable. In order 
that women may leave their children, and go out to work in sweated 
industries at insufficient wages, there is introduced a complicated 
system of motherhood endowment, day nurseries, milk depots, 
créches, widow’s pensions, visiting nurses and social workers, 
physicians, nurses, and attendants at clinics and in free maternity 
wards, playground instructors, and the like, each one of whom 
insensibly comes to have a vested interest in perpetuating the 
system and, with it, his job. A large part of the employes of this 
system are superior unmarried women, who find in their employ- 
ment little stimulus to marriage and little opportunity for mar- 
riage. The wage-earning mother whose children actually benefit 
by these facilities is quite unable to pay her share of the upkeep 
of all these costly substitutes for her own services, so the burden 


COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION 239 


too often falls on the much-burdened middle class, already forced 
to cut down the number of its own children by too many burdens 
of this sort. Thus, as Mr. and Mrs. Whetham point out, “one 
of the most vicious circles in modern civilization is formed, and 
once formed, is regarded as inevitable and desirable, superior girls 
being at once encouraged to prepare themselves to occupy such 
positions as a life work, rather than to become mothers.” 

To break such a vicious circle is not easy, and it can not be done 
at all without a prolonged effort. Industries which succeed only 
by the labor of tenement-house mothers will have to find some 
other source of recruitment. Fewer children among these families, 
and better education of the mothers in the duties of their proper 
occupations, will help. Back of everything else is the necessity of 
a more active and intelligent interest in the conservation of the 
family from a eugenic point of view. 

Housing difficulties are so well recognized as to need nothing 
more than mention. Parents often have trouble in finding homes 
where children will be permitted; they have still more in finding 
homes where children will be well provided for. Although the 
man putting up a new house often asserts that he is doing so 
primarily for the benefit of his children, the latter are the last ones 
who get any real consideration from the architect. There is room 
here for some radical reforms. 


MORE RECREATION 


7. Increase in facilities for wholesome, inexpensive recreation, 
preferably out of doors, for persons of all ages, is an important 
part of the conservation of the family. For children, playgrounds, 
school grounds, parks, swimming pools, and properly supervised 
commercial amusements are needed in greater abundance. For 
adults, there are such possibilities as community centers, gymnasia, 
swimming pools, commercial entertainments, public lectures, 
concerts, motion pictures, dances, and so on in innumerable array. 
This is such a specialized and highly developed field that further 
discussion here would be out of place. 


240 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


ELIMINATION OF EVILS 


8. Almost every form of social organization ought to contribute 
either directly or indirectly to the conservation of the family, 
both constructively, and by aiding to eliminate the many perils 
which the family has to face. Churches, and men’s and women’s 
clubs, have a particularly important part to play, but they rarely 
live up to their responsibilities. 

Beyond this it has been found, in any city where conditions 
become flagrant, that the formation of a small group to stimulate 
law enforcement has been extremely helpful. I have described 
the operation of such a committee somewhat fully in an earlier 
publication (1919). 

Attention should be centered on preventive and protective 
work, particularly to stop the exploitation of the young by com- 
mercial agencies of a vicious sort. Policewomen and women 
protective workers have been found valuable in many communities. 
But throughout it must be remembered that the constructive work 
is the most effective; that no child is ever so safe as when he is in 
the right kind of a home; and that most juvenile delinquents come 
from broken homes. 

The failure of parents of this generation to exercise an adequate 
supervision over their children, or to develop a feeling of comrade- 
ship in the home, has been pointed out so often that it is painfully 
trite: but it is none the less important. 

Commercial dance halls are difficult of regulation, and likely 
to be trouble-breeders. Many attempts have been made to find 
a successful formula for dealing with them, but results have rarely 
if ever been wholly satisfactory, so far as I am aware. 

Censorship of motion pictures, the stage, and fiction is a much 
discussed theme, into the details of which it is impossible here to 
enter. That some sort of censorship is fully justified was pointed 
out in the introduction to this part. Official censorship of motion 
pictures seems to have done more good than harm, except to the 
sensibilities of a few Personal Liberty crusaders, and to the pocket- 
books of a few pandering exhibitors. A jury of 12 representative 


COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION 241 


men and women has been tried in New York City to deal with the 
legitimate stage (often falsely so called), while a committee, organ- 
ized in Massachusetts to rule on printed matter, has given satisfac- 
tion. On general principles, much is to be said for the plea that 
censorship in each field of art should be left to the action of the 
best men and women in that particular field; but they must have 
power to enforce their decisions. 

Under any effective system of censorship it is inevitable that 
some good work will be stopped, but this will be more than com- 
pensated for by the bad work eliminated. The fact is that much 
of the flood of fiction and drama would be well spared. It is not 
the function of art to solve sociological problems. Obviously, 
most artists are wholly unequipped for such a task. One of the 
worst features of modern civilization (due largely to an educational 
system based on authority instead of on open mind) is the excessive 
respect it shows for printed matter—outdoing even the Chinese 
veneration for anything that gets put in ink on paper. Any worn- 
out old roué or hysterical young girl can project his or her libido 
—as Dr. Freud would say—over 300 pages of manuscript, get the 
result bound between covers, and at once it becomes Art with 
capital A. If it be obscure, incoherent, unintelligible, so much the 
better: it is then Deep (cf. the skatophilous babble of James Joyce). 
It is high time that some of the flood of modern literature were 
diverted into an outfall sewer, and if official censorship is the only 
method to bring this about, then official censorship will have to 
come. 

Few fathers would deliberately give their own children porno- 
graphic literature to read. Much of the adult population of the 
United States consists of those who are mentally children but— 
worse still—with the physical feelings of a grown-up. Bad liter- 
ature does them more harm that it would a grammar-school child; 
yet any attempt to stop the stream rouses the frenzied opposition 
of the self-appointed Guardians of Art. 

Art should confine its attentions to its proper function. What- 
ever that may be, it is certainly not the reconstruction of the mores. 
It should leave to science the task of studying and modifying where 


242 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


necessary the social structure of society. If artists are to undertake 
the latter task, they must inevitably be judged on the basis of their 
own personalities, as well as on the basis of their artistry—a 
proposition that is peculiarly infuriating to devotees of Art for Art’s 
Sake. Most professional critics of art and literature would then 
have to have a wholly different background from that which they 
now possess. The excitement aroused among the literati not long 
ago when Margaret Deland gave utterance to the truism that 
fiction must be based on truth, is amusing evidence, if any were 
needed, of the extent to which this truism is ignored, both in the 
theory and in the practice of many modern writers. 

Legislation, and its enforcement, are needed in connection with 
many phases of the conservation of the family; but as the laws in 
question have been discussed at appropriate places in the body of 
this book, they will not be reviewed here. Laws offer no panacea, 
no short cut to reform, and it is more important just now that pub- 
lic opinion be formed intelligently on all problems concerning the 
family, than it is to pass many new laws. A better society will 
come not so much from new legislation as from better people— 
better by birth, or better by education, or (more usually) both. 


PART IV 
CONCLUSION 


sai > a! vie i 
A 


he: Ay aA ee AS ah 
aT ah ia! al A 
eatery rahl wh he ye 


ius Sarto 
es ten Wall VT 





THE CHANGING FAMILY 


The monogamous family is an institution which has evolved 
along with the human race, and has been one of the things that 
has raised mankind above the ape. It is based on the most funda- 
mental instincts and biological necessities, and because of these 
facts there is no reason to suppose that it will be outgrown within 
any period that can now be foreseen. 

During the last century or two, however, it has been going 
through a transition period. The old system of guidance by 
religion and custom has to a large extent broken down, without the 
development as yet of a rational guidance to take its place! Many 
men and women are therefore drifting helplessly, swept this way 
and that by contradictory feelings and dispositions and habits. 

This condition has been worsened by many others that are 
matters of common knowledge. ‘The average level of intelligence 
in the United States has probably decreased, through birth limita- 
tion of the older stocks and immigration of millions of foreigners. 
The latter have brought their own customs and institutions, which 
did not always harmonize with those of America. Great material 
prosperity has prevailed, and has inevitably tended to make its 
benefits overvalued, so that to many persons the pleasures to be 
had in a home have seemed small when contrasted with those 
open “down town” to the possessor of a pocket full of spending 
money. The crowding of people into large cities has crippled 
normal home life, and made it non-existent for many; this city life 
has also thrown on the schools a burden which they are unable to 
bear. The great multiplication of interests outside the home has 
tended still further to draw young and old away from the traditional 
fireside; and the perfection of means of transportation, particularly 
the automobile, has contributed immensely to this end. The low 
tone of literature and the drama; the effects of the World War; 


1] have discussed this point more fully in a separate publication (1922). 
245 


246 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


the general dependence on immature girls as school teachers; the 
increasing absorption of women in affairs outside the home and the 
participation by many of them in business and industry—all these 
and a score of other causes familiar to every reader have changed 
completely, in a large proportion of cases, the inner character of the 
family. 

While many of these changes were unavoidable, and many of 
them in other respects desirable, they should have been recognized 
as altering the character of the family, and education for family 
life should have been brought up to date so that, as each new 
problem arose, young people would be trained to meet it. 

This, however, was not done. On the contrary, as the problems 
confronting husband and wife increased in complexity, the educa- 
tion available to help them meet these problems seemed to become 
less and less adequate. The result is that there is now a much 
greater gap than there was a hundred years ago, between the duties 
of parents and their capacity to discharge these duties. 

A century ago, for instance, the selection of a mate was a simple 
matter,—young people grew up together in the same village, went 
to school, church, and parties together, knew each other thor- 
oughly, fell in love, and settled down to home making in the same 
community, with a common background and among friends and 
relatives to help them. ‘The family physician advised them regard- 
ing matrimony. ‘The neighbors gave them “showers’’ and some- 
times even helped to build them a house. There were abundant 
sisters, mothers, aunts, and grandmothers, to assist a young girl 
with her babies. ‘The standard of living was simple in most com- 
munities; the girls did not expect silk stockings any more than the 
boys expected automobiles. In life on a farm or in a village, 
children could give enough help to their parents, after a few 
years, to be an aid rather than a burden and—much more impor- 
tant—by giving this help they prepared themselves to become 
successful parents and citizens in later years. 

Now, boys and girls are often set adrift in a large city, without 
any facilities for meeting possible mates. If they do meet, it is an 


THE CHANGING FAMILY 247 


accident, and matings are likely to be between persons who know 
nothing of each other’s pasts, and whose backgrounds are in many 
ways dissimilar. They settle down among strangers, in an un- 
friendly environment where not a hand is reached out to guide 
and steady them, while all around are difficulties, distractions, and 
seductions which make it as easy as possible for the home to be 
wrecked. Bearing and bringing up children involves another 
group of difficulties, equally appalling to a friendless couple, fight- 
ing for existence in a hostile city with no training to solve much 
easier problems than those they actually have to face. 

Present-day civilization is the first one on record to place the 
entire responsibility for success in managing a family, on two 
persons only. In the past, even in America, the burden has been 
more divided, as outlined above, while in other civilizations, of 
which the Chinese is an outstanding illustration, the load has been 
so widely distributed that the welfare of an individual is a matter 
of concern, and even of active interference, to every one of his 
kinsmen. 

For many reasons, it appears that some form of distribution of 
the burden is the more rational procedure. It will be interesting 
to see how the American family develops, in this respect, during 
the next few generations. ‘The recent tendency has been to take 
responsibility from relatives and transfer it to the state. This is 
not working well, and probably, in the nature of things, never will 
work well. It seems likely that there will be a swing back in the 
other direction, to emphasize once more the solidarity and con- 
tinuity of family life. 

In addition to the obstacles that have been mentioned, one 
might enumerate many abnormalities, some of which have been 
exploited by highly commercialized methods. With all these 
handicaps, it is remarkable that the wreckage of families is as small 
as it is. 

It is bad enough, however, to make many superficial observers 
think it is worse and give it up as hopeless. This is the type of 
reformer who sets the house on fire to get rid of the rats. Un- 


248 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


fortunately his name is still Legion—or, more frequently, her 
name is Legion, for the multiplication of reckless bachelor girls, 
parasite wives, cynical divorcees, and vindictive old maids has 
created a large class of malcontents who would justify their own 
inadequacy by blaming everything—except themselves. Added 
to these are similar classes of men, together with many earnest, 
well-meaning, but ignorant persons of both sexes who seek only the 
betterment of mankind, but are groping for it in complete mental 
darkness. 

As all these classes enjoy nothing more than to preach their views 
and thereby exalt themselves; and as the people who are happily 
married are too busy enjoying each other and their children to 
descend into the arena and contend with these sociological gladi- 
ators, the prophets of calamity have had things too much their 
own way. The result of half a century or more of this is that even 
the innocent spectator is beginning to think that the family is a 
lost cause, and that the wisest course might be that which rats 
are popularly supposed to adopt on a sinking ship,—to desert it 
and seek safety elsewhere. 

Here, it seems to me, is the greatest danger in the present situa- 
tion. Confused by the propaganda I have mentioned, people who 
ought to know better are likely to jump to the conclusion that, 
because the family is out of joint, this disjointed condition must be 
dealt with as a final reality, and all social measures shaped to suit 
the supposed reality. In other words, it is the old story of not 
seeing beyond the symptoms, and puttering around with these 
when one should be going to the root of the evil and eradicating it. 

This is precisely what has once happened with prostitution. It 
existed, therefore it was supposed to be a ‘“‘necessary evil,” and 
well-meaning people consented to perpetuate and worsen it by 
establishing segregated districts, with state license, regulation, 
and supervision. There always had been prostitution, it was 
argued; man’s nature seemed to demand it; therefore, though it 
might have some unpleasant aspects, realists could do nothing 
except face the reality and make the best of it; which they supposed 
they were doing, while W. E. H. Lecky, like a film hero, shed the 


THE CHANGING FAMILY 249 


official glycerine tears’ over the sad fate of this ‘‘eternal priestess of 
humanity,’ and the pimps, panders, procurers, madames, and 
crooked politicians chortled with glee while they counted up their 
profits and swelled the chorus of assurance that human nature 
was unchangeable and that this was the only way to protect the 
homes of decent people. 

This particular folly has been largely annihilated. At present 
it would be difficult to find in the United States an informed person 
who does not recognize that this was an entirely false line of pro- 
cedure, and that the only scientific course is to refuse all compromise 
with this wholly unnecessary evil, and to attack it root and branch 
—especially root. 

But society is now starting on the same erroneous course in 
connection with other unnecessary evils. Sexual promiscuity 
exists; it seems to meet a demand of man’s nature; the freedom 
of the personality requires that people be as promiscuous as they 
please; therefore educators in high positions seriously argue that 
this evil should be legalized and regulated, as prostitution was in 
the old days of the Red Light District. It seems never to occur 
to these myopic invalids that the cure lies in prevention, rather 
than in a patent-medicine cure-all. 

I have dealt with this particular proposal elsewhere (1925); 
but the same argument crops up at every turn. Abortion exists, 
it is now discovered; it seems to meet a demand of woman’s nature; 
therefore, though it may have some unpleasant aspects, the only 
thing for realists to do is to look it in the face, legalize it, and re- 
adjust society to it. 


2 The notorious description of the prostitute in his History of European Morals 
deserves frequent repetition as an example of how not to approach a biological 
problem. Every sentence in it is as mischievously inaccurate as it could be: 

“The supreme type of vice, she is ultimately the most efficient guardian of 
virtue. But for her, the unchallenged purity of countless happy homes would 
be polluted, and not a few who, in the pride of their untempted chastity, think 
of her with an indignant shudder, would have known the agony of remorse and 
despair. On that one degraded and ignoble form are concentrated the passions 
that might have filled the world with shame. She remains, while creeds and 
civilizations rise and fall, the eternal priestess of humanity, blasted for the sins of 
the people.” 


250 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


Mismating and broken homes exist; they seem to correspond to 
a demand of men’s and women’s natures; therefore the only thing 
for practical people to do is to accept them as part of “‘God’s will,” 
to bring them under legal supervision, and to make them easier 
by regulation. | 

Each of these propositions is defended, not in so many words 
but in a great many more words to the same effect, by innumerable 
recent writers, who have entirely lost their perspective. It is 
significant that among them one finds few biologists. From 
Charles Darwin down, most of the members of this profession have 
had an evolutionary outlook which has kept them from falling 
into the errors made by intellectual Don Quixotes. 

The fundamental evil, in connection with the family, is mis- 
mating; but for every proposal to improve the mating system there 
are twenty proposals having to do with its consequences and at- 
tempting to patch up the results of mismating without even looking 
at the causes. It seems self-evident that reform should begin 
by the exhaustion of every endeavor to increase the proportion of 
successful matings. This would mean (1) better choice in marriage 
selection, (2) more deliberate and carefully considered marriages, 
(3) education of parents for their duties, (4) education of both 
sexes in the art of love, (5) making it possible for people to have 
children (an essential of a happy marriage for normal people) by 
removing any obstacles that now hinder this. 

Most of the dissatisfaction with existing marriage is expressed 
either by women, or by men who have accepted the woman’s 
point of view of the case. This point of view is that marriage as 
it is supposed to exist at present is not favorable to the full develop- 
ment of woman’s personality; that it makes of her “the most im- 
portant domesticated animal” but not a person living every phase 
of life to the fullest and developing every potentiality of inheritance 
to the utmost; not a citizen taking an active and constructive part 
in the affairs of business and government. All these things it is 
argued, are her natural right, and she must not be asked to give 
them up and spend her life bearing and rearing children for the 
benefit of a society which not only does not esteem such a sacrifice 


THE CHANGING FAMILY O51 


enough to reward it, but rather sneers at anyone who is weak or 
stupid enough to be caught in the snare. 

Such an indictnient can not be answered adequately in a sen- 
tence, for it is compounded of truth, half-truth, and falsehood, 
tangled into such a snarl that one scarcely knows where to begin 
to unravel it. That there are faults in modern marriage is mani- 
fest; that they are to be charged against both sexes will be admitted 
by all fair-minded people; that they are to be removed mainly by 
education seems clear enough. Every effort should be made to 
conform to every legitimate desire of women in this respect, if the 
long domination of man over marriage laws has resulted in in- 
justice; but so far as laws are concerned, everyone knows that the 
inequalities have been removed with a vengeance, until now the 
man rather than the woman has a right to complain of mistreat- 
ment—a right, it may be noted, which he seems not to value highly, 
for he rarely avails himself of it. Much of the remaining dis- 
content among women is based on wholly false ideas of the differ- 
entiation of the two sexes, and a colossal ignorance of the conse- 
quences of the specialization which both have undergone for 
millions of years. Only a sound biological education will show the 
way around these quicksands of dissatisfaction. 

While the times occasionally look dark, to one who desires 
the conservation of the family, it must yet be borne in mind that 
monogamy has weathered many worse storms than this in the past. 
Like everything else, it has had its advances and its reverses, but 
this pendular movement seems to bring it steadily, even though 
slowly, forward. 

Lax as are the manners of some parts of society at present, they 
are not so lax as those that prevailed at one time or another in 
almost every European nation, including those of antiquity. In 
Greece and Rome, it is true, the state failed to survive, but went 
down to ruin when its foundation, the family, decayed. But 
France and England, Italy and Gemany, to name only a few 
examples, have all passed through much worse crises in family life 
than they are now undergoing. 

It is encouraging to count up the gains, or partial gains. 


252 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


Woman has been effectively “emancipated.” It is too much to 
expect that she would always use her freedom wisely. Yet it is 
freedom, and may be made into a gain for all concerned. 

A democratic relationship in the family has been reached in 
theory, and often in practice. Certainly under the worst tyranny 
to which feminists today can point, there is nothing comparable 
with the patriarchal power which the father of the family possessed 
in early Rome. 

There is a general, sometimes an excessive, recognition of the 
rights of the child; but in any case it means progress in the right 
direction. 

A new conception of fatherhood is gaining ground. While this 
is not perhaps superior to one that has been held by many earlier 
peoples, it is yet a great improvement on anything that has been 
generally accepted during the last few centuries in western civili- 
zation. 

The importance of heredity and eugenics is coming to be recog- 
nized as rarely before, and great progress is to be expected in this 
direction. 

The whole subject of reproduction has been pried loose from the 
tabus under which it lay festering for centuries. This change has 
been accompanied by temporary excesses, but they can scarcely 
be said to outweigh the great gain of bringing reproduction into 
the open and recognizing it as a normal, reputable thing which can 
even be mentioned aloud among respectable people. 

Voluntary parenthood has been accepted in principle, and largely 
in practice, in almost every part of the civilized world. While this 
change has, on the whole, proved highly detrimental in operation, 
the principle is yet an indispensable one to racial progress. It is in 
line with evolution, which consists, among other things, in a pro- 
gressive increase of independence, of control exerted by organisms 
over their environment. With proper emphasis voluntary parent- 
hood can yet become to the race what it already is to the in- 
dividual—a benefit more than a detriment. Unfortunately, it is 
not yet clear whether the necessary change in emphasis can be 
made before irreparable damage is done. This problem of a wise 


THE CHANGING FAMILY 253 


distribution of birth limitation is the most serious one that society 
now has to face. 

Commercialized and state regulated vice have seen their day. 
Churches no longer establish segregated districts; bishops no longer 
figure as owners of bawdy houses; municipalities no longer think 
they are honoring a guest of the city by presenting him with the 
freedom of their brothels. Where law enforcement has been 
tried intelligently, it has succeeded. There has probably never 
been in history a large city so free from open prostitution as is 
New York City today—to mention only one conspicuous instance. 

The double standard of morality, which accorded license to men 
while maintaining the “virtue” of women with fanatical jealousy, 
has lost what little pseudo-scientific support it ever had, and is no 
longer defended among intelligent people. 

Finally, the family has become the subject of rational and active 
inquiry. While this inquiry has too often ignored the biological 
premises, and has therefore gone disastrously astray, it is yet an 
advantage to have any inquiry, for only through free and careful 
investigation can the complexities of modern life be so adjusted as 
to safeguard the home. 

There is evidence on all sides that a new interest in family con- 
servation is arising. The Family Wage idea, which has spread so 
extraordinarily in Europe, is an eloquent testimonial to the recog- 
nition of the value of the home. More and more, thoughtful people 
are realizing that it is not necessary to wait for the creation of a 
Utopia—that a good family life can be maintained here and now, 
if the available knowledge is put to use. 

The marriage of the future—if a slight glance ahead is per- 
missible—will naturally be an improvement on that of the present 
or past. This evolution, however, will not involve any radical 
new departures of a legal or economic nature, much less an era of 
kaleidoscopic “free love.” It seems certain that monogamy will 
be more firmly established than ever before, and that such changes 
as occur will be largely changes in spirit and attitude. The family 
of the future will, I think, be marked by (1) much better mate 
selection, (2) much greater understanding, making for permanence 


254 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


of love, (3) more intelligent consideration of children, (4) greater 
concern for individual development, particularly of women, (5) 
more democracy, (6) fuller biological differentiation of function. 
In the past, men and women, as complementary and mutually 
dependent sexes, codperated in production. ‘The tendency since 
the beginning of the industrial revolution has been to break up this 
codperation in production, and to substitute for it competition in 
distribution. A better appreciation of the biological foundations 
of society, with which economics like all other sciences must ulti- 
mately be squared, will bring about a return to codperation between 
the sexes, not alone for individual gain but even more for the 
benefit of their children. 

In short, the improvement that one may hope to see in monog- 
amy will not be so much an improvement in the forms and con- 
ventions (which, after all, are superficial matters), as an improve- 
ment in the quality of the people practicing monogamy. Finer 
and deeper natures form more lasting and helpful bonds with 
each other than do the frivolous and infantile. Evolution can not 
continue without producing a better race of men; and a better race 
of men can not fail to make better marriages. 

Progress of mankind as a whole appears to be inevitable if the 
species survives at all. Progress of any given group is by no 
means inevitable. History is largely made up of a record of those 
groups that, through their own ignorance and folly, have been 
pushed out of the procession. But mankind today has it more 
nearly in its power than ever before, to make sure of its continued 
progress. It possesses knowledge that was not available to any 
nation of the past. 

America can go ahead, if it has the will. Wisdom, patience, 
determination—these with the development of the biological 
sciences and the codrdination of other sciences with them, can not 
fail to succeed in rendering justice to the individual man and 
woman, to their children, and to the greater world outside their 
home. A real effort is necessary, but a real effort will not be in 
vain. 


REFERENCES 


ACHILLES, Paut S.—The Effectiveness of Certain Social Hygiene Literature; 
New York, 1923. 

BALL, JAu Don and Haywarp G. THomas—‘‘A Sociological, Neurological, 
Serological, and Psychiatrical Study of a Group of Prostitutes’’; 
American Journal of Insanity, April, 1918. 

BicELow, M. A.—Sex Education; New York, 1916. 

BoSANQUET, HELEN—The Family; London and New York, 1906. 

Bow ey, A. L.—-‘‘Births and Population in Great Britain”; Economic Journal, 
June, 1924. 

CATTELL, J. MCKEEN—A merican Men of Science; New York, 1921. 

CHILDREN’S BurEAU—Standards of Legal Protection for Children Born out of 
Wedlock; Pub. No. 77, Washington, 1921. 

CoorEr, JoHN M.—“‘Human Welfare and the Monogamous Ideal;” Social 
Hygiene, October, 1920. 

Crum, FREDERICK S.—‘‘The Decadence of the Native American Stock;” 
Quarterly Publications of the American Statistical Association, Septem- 
ber, 1914, 

DAVENPORT, CHARLES B.— “Influence of the Male on the Production of Twins”; 
American Naturalist LIV (1920), 122-129. 

Davis, KATHERINE BEMENT—“‘A Study of the Sex Life of the Normal Married 
Woman”; Journal of Social Hygiene, April, 1922, January, 1923, 
March, 1923. 

Dickinson, RoBERT L.—“‘Contraception: a Medical Review of the Situation”; 
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, November, 1924. 

Dove tas, Paut H.—“‘Is the Family of Five Typical?”; Journal of the American 
Statistical Association, September, 1924. 

EsTABROOK, A. H.—The Jukes in 1915; Washington, 1916. 

ForErRSTER, Fr. W.—Marriage and the Sex Problem; New York (1913 ?); (a 
translation of his Sexwalethik und Sexualpddagogik, by Meyrick Booth.) 

FRANKENTHAL, KATE—“Zur Frage der Straflosigkeit der Abtreibung”; Zezt- 
schrift fiir Sexualwissenschaft, April, 1921. 

FREUND, ErNnsT—Illegitimacy Laws of the United States—Analysis and Index; 
U. S. Children’s Bureau Publication No. 42, Washington, 1919. 

GALLOWAY, THomMAas W.—Love and Marriage; New York, 1924. 

Gatton, Francis—[Proposal of a Eugenics Registry]; Fraser’s Magazine, 
January, 1873. 

GOODSELL, WILLYSTINE—The Family as a Social and Educational Institution; 
New York, 1915. 


255 


256 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


HADFIELD, J. A—Psychology and Morals; New York, 1924. 

Hatt, Frep S. and Mary E. Ricamonp,—Child Marriages in the United States; 
New York (Russell Sage Foundation), 1925. 

HALVERSON, J. JEANNETTE—“The Profligacy of Dependent Families”; 
American Journal of Sociology, November, 1923. 

Harris, Joun W.—‘“Pregnancy and Labor in Young Primiparae”’; Bulletin of 
Johns Hopkins Hospital, January, 1922. 

Harrison, PAUL W.—The Arab at Home; New York, 1924. 

Hitt, Josep A.—“Comparative Fecundity of Women of Native and Foreign 
Parentage’’; Quarterly Publications of the American Statistical Associa- 
tion XIII, 583-604. 

Hitt, LEonarp—in The Conirol of Parenthood (edited by James Marchant); 
New York and London, 1920. 

Hotimes, S. J—‘‘The Size of College Families”; Journal of Heredity, October, 
1924. . 

Hotes, S. J. and C. M. Doup—‘The Approaching Extinction of the May- 
flower Descendants”; Journal of Heredity IX (1918), 296-300. 
Hovussay, FrepEric—‘‘Eugénique et Régimes Alimentaires’”’, in Eugénique et 

Sélection; Paris, 1922. 
Howarp, Grorce Evtiotr—History of Matrimonial Institutions; Chicago, 1904. 
Jounson, BaAscom—“‘Law Enforcement in Social Hygiene”, in Sex and Social 
Health; American Social Hygiene Association, New York, 1924. 
Jounson, Roswert Hitt—“‘Eugenic Aspect of Sexual Immorality”’; Journal of 
Heredity, March, 1917. 

and PauL PopENOE—A pplied Eugenics; New York, 1918. 

“The Determination of Disputed Parentage as a Factor in Reducing 
Infant Mortality”; Journal of Heredity, March, 1919, 

“The Distribution of Wealth as a Eugenist Sees It’; Social Hygiene, 
July, 1921. 

KeiiLocc, JoHN Harvey—“A Eugenics Registry”; in Proceedings of The First 
National Conference on Race Betterment, Battle Creek, 1914. 

KoEGEL, Orro E.—“‘Common Law Marriage and its Development in the United 
States”; in Eugenics in Race and State, Baltimore, 1923. 

Lea, Henry C.—An Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian 
Church; Boston, 1884. 

Lecky, W. E. H.—History of European Morals; New York, 1877. 

LENROOT, KATHARINE F.—“‘Social Responsibility for the Protection of Children 
Handicapped by Illegitimate Birth”; Annals of the American Academy 
of Political and Social Science, November, 1921. 

Lenz, Frirz—Menschliche Auslese und Rassenhygiene (Vol. II of Grundriss der 
menschlichen Erblichkeitslehre, by E. Baur, E. Fischer, and F. Lenz); 
Munich, 1923. 

LeTouRNEAU, Cu.—The Evolution of Marriage and the Family; London, 1908. 











REFERENCES 257 


LUNDBERG, Emma O. and KatTHarInE F. LENRooT—IIlegitimacy as a Child- 
Welfare Problem, Part II; U.S. Children’s Bureau Publication No. 75, 
Washington, 1921. 

Maynarp, G. D.—“A Study in Human Fertility”; Biometrika, March, 1923. 

McDovuecatt, Witt1am—Is America Safe for Democracy?; New York, 1921. 

Meyer, A. W.—“‘Some Aspects of Abortion”; Contributions to Embryology 
(Carnegie Institute of Washington, Publication No. 275), Washington, 
1921. 

Mit, Joun StuaARt—On Liberty; London, 1859. 

Mupcett, Mirprep D.—‘‘Where Courts Interlock”; The Family, May, 1923. 

Noyes, Hrtpa H.—“‘Insurance and Eugenics”; Eugenical News, August, 1919. 

“The Development of Useful Citizenship”; Journal of Heredity, Febru- 

ary, 1920. 

O’SHEA, M. V.—‘‘Changing Courses of Study”, in The Child, His Nature and 
Needs (M. V. O’Shea, ed); Valparaiso, Ind., 1924. 

PARKER, CORNELIA STRATTON—An American Idyl; Boston, 1919. 

Parkes, A. S.—‘‘Studies on the Sex-Ratio and Related Phenomena: 6, The 
Effect of Polygyny”’; Annals of Applied Biology, May, 1925. 

Peck, M. W. and F. L. Wetts—‘“‘On the Psycho-Sexuality of College Graduate 
Men”; Mental Hygiene, October, 1923. 

——— “Further Studies in the Psycho-Sexuality of College Graduate Men”; 
ibid., July, 1925. 

Puitsy, H. St. J. B.—The Heart of Arabia; New York, 1923. 

PopENOE, Paut—‘“‘Eugenics and College Education’; School and Society, 
October 13, 1917. 

—— “Will Morality Disappear?”’; Journal of Heredity, October, 1918. 

—— and RosweE Lu Hitt JoHnson—A pplied Eugenics; New York, 1918. 

——— “Law Enforcement: a Plan for Organized Action”; Social Hygiene, July, 
1919. (Also reprinted as Publication No. 182 of the American Social 
Hygiene Association.) 

——— “Eugenics and Human Morality ”’; Journal of Heredity, February, 1922. 

— “Eugenics and Islam,” in Eugenics in Race and State, Baltimore, 1923. 

“Family or Companionate?”’; Journal of Social Hygiene, March, 1925. 

Raceot, Gaston—La Natalité—ses Lois Economiques et Psychologiques; 
Paris, 1918. 

ReEvutTER, E. B.—Population Problems; Philadelphia, 1923. 

Ropinson, Witi1aAm J.—‘‘Abortion Historically and Ethnologically Con- 
sidered’’; American Journal of Urology and Sexology, 1919. 

SoROKIN, Pitrrmi—‘‘American Millionaires and Multimillionaires: a Compara- 
tive Statistical Study”; Journal of Social Forces, III, 627-641. 

SPENCER, ANNA GaRLIN—“The Social Education of Women’’; Publications of 
the American Sociological Society XIII (1918). 

SPENCER, HERBERT—Education; London, 1861. 








258 THE CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY 


SPINNER, J. R.—‘‘Uber die Methodik in der Betrachtung des Abortuspro- 
blems”; Archiv fiir Frauenkunde, October, 1920. 

STATE CHARITIES AID ASSOCIATION (NEW YORK)—How Foster Children Turn 
Out; Publication No. 165, New York, 1924. 

SWINBURNE, J.—Population and the Social Problem; New York, 1924. 

THOMPSON, WARREN S.—‘‘Race Suicide in the United States’; American Jour- 
nal of Physical Anthropology, III (1920), 97-146. 

TisstER, L.—[Report on Abortion]; Journal de M édecine et de Chirurgie Prati- 
ques, Sept. 25, 1917. 

TREADWAY, WALTER L., L. O. WELDON and AticeE M. Hirt—‘Psychiatric 
Studies of Delinquent Women”; Public Health Reports, May, June, and 
July, 1920. 

Tripon, ANDRE—“Birth Control and Psychoanalysis”; in Birth Control: What 
Ili Is, How It Works, What It Will Do (Proceedings of the First Ameri- 
can Birth Control Conference); pub. by Birth Control Review, New 
York, n.d. 

WaccamMan, Mary T.—‘‘Some Developments in the Movement for ‘Family 

: Wages’”; Monthly Labor Review, October, 1921. 

WELLS, H. G.—First and Last Things; New York (1908?). 
WESTERMARCK, EDwWARD—A History of Human Marriage, 5th ed.; New York, 
1923. 
WHETHAM, W. C. D. and C. D.—Heredity and Society; London, 1912. 
YERKES, RoBERT M.—Psychological Examining in the U. S. Army; Memoirs 
of the National Academy of Science XV, Washington, 1921. 

Intellectual and Educational Status of the Medical Profession as Represented 
in the U. S. Army; Bulletin No. 8, National Research Council; Wash- 
ington, 1921. 





INDEX 


A 


Abortion and free love, 14, 15 
attitude of society toward, 249 
discussion of, 113 
in Birth Control propaganda, 119 

Abrams, Electronic Reactions of, 145 

Achilles, Paul S., 60, 255 

Age at marriage a cause of unhappi- 

ness, 69 
at marriage in United States, 68 
in childbirth, 25 
in marriage, 23, 28 
relation to sexual activity, 77 
restrictions on, 28 
Alcoholism as ground for divorce, 82 
American Social Hygiene Association, 
vii, 88 

Ancestry, importance of good, 27 
pride in, 235 

Anthropoid apes, 

among, 9 

Arabian Nights, love in, 75 

Arabs, polygamy among, 17 

Art and family ideals, 234 
function of, 241 
relation to morality, 200 

Ascetic ideal, discussion of, 48 

Asylums, orphan, 42 

Athletes, asceticism among, 50 

Authority, family, 235 
in educational system, 241 

Auto-erotism in marriage, 78 


type of family 


B 


Baby bounties, 210, 212 
Bacon, Francis, 161 
Baker, O. E., 137 


Ball, Jau Don, 85, 255 
Banns, publication of, 33 
Barbary Coast, 84, 85 
Barrenness due to gonorrhea, 93, 96 
general causes of, 95 
Bastard, 106 
Bastardy, 100 
Beauharnais, Josephine, 97 
Belief, influence of, 159 
Bigelow, M. A., vii, 169, 255 
Birds, life-long monogamy among, 10 
Birth Control and abortion, 119 
discussion of, 139, 252 
Birth-rate, 21 
among the inferior, 137 
among the superior, 127 
and income, 206 
Births, registration of, 225 
Blue Bird, The, 188 
Bonaparte, Napoleon, 97, 106 
Bosanquet, Helen, 43, 255 
Bowley, A. L., 143, 255 
Breach of promise, 62, 100 
Bureau of Census, 129 
Burke, Edmund, 235 


C 


Carnegie, Andrew, 215 
Carnivora, mating among, 10 
Cattell, J. McKeen, 131, 255 
Celibacy and genius, 230 
discussion of, 48 
of college graduates, 131 
religious, 49 
Celibates, mental attitude of, 54, 170 
Censorship, desirability of, 160 
place of, 240 


259 


260 


Census Bureau, United States, statis- 
tics of, 73 
Chicago Vice Commission, 84 
Childbearing, attitude toward, 197 
Childbirth, danger in, due to age, 69 
need for research on, 226 
Childless family, 35, 95 
Children, care of, 237 
number of, in family, 6, 35 
quality of, 37 
resulting from free love matings, 15 
rights of, 252 
supervision of, 240 
training in sex for, 166 
Children’s Bureau, 105, 106, 205, 255 
Chinese form of family, 247 
Christianity and abortion, 113 
celibacy, 50 
Child murder, 121 
Civilization, influence of, on monog- 
amy, 10 
relationship to race, 53 
Clark, Mary A., vii 
Clinics for broken homes, 81 
contraception, 147 
family problems, 81, 224 
treatment of impotence, 83 
Club women’s attitude toward home, 
222 
Coitus, children’s knowledge of, 171 
place of, in life, 66 
teaching of fact of, 170 
Coleridge, S. T., 77 
College graduates, fecundity of, 129 
Colleges, influence of women’s, 16 
neglect of education for family 
life by, 178 
Common law marriage, 33 
Compatibility and broken homes, 80 
and sexual selection, 23 
physical, in marriage, 14 
Complex, parental, among children, 
42 


INDEX 


Confucius, 201 
Consanguinity in marriage, 29 
Continence, amount of, among men, 
60 

amount of, among women, 61 
Contraceptives, efficacy of, 131 
Cooper, John M., vii, 10, 255 
Court of Domestic Relations, 82, 109 
Cousin marriages, 29 

among Muslims, 19 
Cruelty as ground for divorce, 82 
Crum, Frederick S., 95, 255 


D 


Dance halls, regulation of, 240 
Dancing, 191 
Darwin, Charles, 250 
Davenport, C. B., 97, 255 
Davis, Katherine Bement, 61, 115, 
13160255 
Deer, mating among, 10 
Defectives, fecundity of, 137 
segregation of, 138, 237 
sterilization of, 139, 237 
taxation of, 217 
Defects, mental, in marriage, 30 
Deland, Margaret, 242 
Delayed marriage, 130 
effect on birth rate, 130 
evils of, 63, 68 
Development (physical, mental, re- 
productive), completion of, 24 
Dickinson, Robert L., 151, 255 
Differentiation, sex, 187, 254 
Diseases, infectious, as bar to 
marriage, 31 
venereal, 91 
Divorce, discussion of, 72 
in relation to second marriage, 14 
Domestic relations court, 82, 109 
Double standard of morality, 61, 253 
Doud, C. M., 143, 256 


INDEX 


Douglas, Paul H., 209, 255 
Dowry, custom of, 70 
Dublin, Louis I., vii 
Dumas, Alexander, Jr., 77 


E 


Early marriage, advantages of, 25 
Education and sexual selection, 23 
for family life, 221 
relation of birth-rate to, 135 
Egypt, polygamy in, 19 
Employment, preferential, 212 
Emotional attitudes of children, 41, 
167 
of parents, 44 
Emotions, development of, 191 
education of the, 192 
evolution of the, 77 
Endowment of motherhood, 213 
England, fecundity of young wives 
in, 24 
population problem in, 142 
Epilepsy as bar to marriage, 31 
Essenes, tenets of, 49 
Estabrook, A. H., 137, 255 
Esthetic causes of prostitution, 86 
Eugenic considerations in sexual 
selection, 26 
phases of incontinence, 58 
results of venereal diseases, 93 
status of illegitimacy, 104 
Europe, incontinence in, 60 
Everett, Ray H., vii 
Exner, M. J., vil 
Experience, necessity 
marriage, 14 
results of, before marriage, 57, 
59, 63 


of, before 


F 


Family as foundation of society, 8 
changing status of, 245 


261 


definition of normal, 6 
education shaped toward, 180 
evolutionary view of, 4 
influence of, on children, 41 
influence of, on fathers, 39 
influence of, on mothers, 40 
origin of, 35 
wage, 209, 253 
Farm, family on, 219 
Farms, increase of population on, 
143 
Fatherhood, education for, 182 
new conception of, 252 
Fear as means of social control, 117 
Fecundity of city population, 126, 132 
eugenically superior, 127 
farm population, 127 
rich and poor, 133 
young wives, 24 
in United States, 143 
Feeblemindedness and illegitimacy, 
102 
marriage, 30 
reproduction, 137 
Feminism and endowment of mother- 
hood, 213 
attitude toward the home, 232, 248, 
250 
in history, 196 
training of children, 187 
Fertility, need for research on, 226 
related to age of marriage, 24 
statistics of, 95 
Finger-prints, registration of, 226 
Filsinger, Mrs. Ernst B., 198 
First-born child, defects of, 37 
predominance of boys among, 153 
Flirtation, necessity of, 191 
Foerster, F. W., 19, 110, 255 
Foster children, 42 
France, population problem in, 139, 
143, 211 
Frankenthal, Kate, 116, 255 


262 


Freedom in marriage, 16 
of action, 158 
of opinion, 159 
of women in home, 233 
of women in marriage, 194 
restrictions on individual, 157 
Free love, examination of, 11 
lack of dignity in, 235 
unlikelihood of, 253 
Freud, Sigmund, 64, 65, 241 
Freund, Ernst, 107, 111, 255 


G 


Galahad, Sir, 188 
Galloway, Thomas W., vii, 183- 
Galton, Francis, 99, 225, 255 
Genealogy, influence of, 235 
Genius and reproduction, 53, 230 
Germ-plasm, continuity of, 53 
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins, 187 
Gonorrhea as bar to marriage, 31 
frequency of, 91 
result of incontinence, 56 
Goodsell, Willystine, 6, 255 
Gorki, Maxim, 201 
Greece, customs of ancient, 50, 197, 
203, 1291 
Gulick, Charlotte V., 187 
Gynecology, need for research in, 226 
place of, in Birth Control, 147 


H 


Hadfield, J. A., 64, 256 

Haines, Thomas H.., vii 

Hall, Fred S., 29, 256 

Halverson, H. J., 137, 256 

Happiness, individual, in marriage, 
16, 74, 194, 254 

Hardy, Thomas, 110 

Harris, John W., 24, 256 

Harrison, Paul W., 18, 256 

Hebrews, celibacy among, 49 


INDEX 


Heredity as basis of sex education, 168 
importance of, in education, 43 
importance recognized, 252 
of illegitimate children, 104 

Hetairae, modern, 195 

Hill, J. A., 95, 256 

Hill, Leonard, 95, 256 

Hippopotami, mating among, 10 

Holland, source of Birth Control 

canards, 145 

Holmes, S. J., 131, 143, 256 

Homes, influence of, 41 
reasons for breakage of, 72 
types of broken, 72 

Hope, Laurence, 198 

Housing difficulties, 239 

Houssay, Frédéric, 95, 256 

Howard, G. E., 6, 256 


I 


Ibn Sa’ud, Sultan of Najd, 18 
Illegitimacy, discussion of, 100 
Immigrants, fecundity of, in United 
States, 95, 143 
influence of, on family, 245 
Impotence as ground for divorce, 82 
Income and birth rate, 206 
tax, 216, 218 
Incontinence, cause of disappointment 
in marriage, 77 
discussion of, 56 
Individualism, an obsolete doctrine, 
159 
in art, 198 
Infant mortality, 205 
Infertility, discussion of, 95 
ground for divorce, 82 
Insanity as bar to marriage, 30 
as ground for divorce, 82 
resulting from syphilis, 92 
Insurance, family, 214 
Irresponsibility in free love matings, 15 
Isis-Madonna tradition, 234 


INDEX 


J 


James, William, 191 

Jesus, attitude of, toward marriage, 49 

Johnson, Bascom, 84, 256 

Johnson, Roswell H., vii, 26, 56, 58, 
68, 107, 135, 148, 149, 256, 257 

Joyce, James, 241 

Jukes, fecundity of, 137 


K 


Kellogg, John Harvey, 225, 256 
Key, Ellen, 193 

Kin, marriage of, 29 

Kneeland, George J., 84 

Koegel, Otto E., 34, 256 

Kuhn, Philaletes, 225 


L 


L’Aiglon, 188 
Latin America, incontinence in, 60, 63 
Law Enforcement against prostitu- 
tion, 90 
in broken homes, 81 
to combat abortion, 124 
voluntary organization for, 240 
Lea, H. C., 50, 256 
Lecky, W. E. H., 248, 256 
Lenroot, K. F., 101, 102, 103, 256 
Lenz, Fritz, 82, 256 
Lethal factors in human matings, 97 
Letourneau, Ch., 5, 256 
Love as a necessity in marriage, 74, 79 
free, examination of, 11 
oriental definitions of, 75 
teaching of art of, 195 
Luce, G. R., vii 
Lundberg, Emma O., 102, 257 


M 
Macaulay, Thomas Babington, 198 


263 


Maladjustment, sexual, in marriage, 
79 
Malthus, Thomas R., 144 
Marchant, James, 256 
Maria Luisa of Austria, 97 
Marriage, common law, 33 
forced, 110 
of the future, 253 
necessary changes in, 194 
promotion of, 226 
rate in United States, 131 
restrictions on, 28 
trial, 13 
Masudi, discussion of love in, 75 
Matchmaking, 193 
Maternity benefits, 212 
Mating, types of, 9 
Maturity, physical, 24 
Mayflower descendants, 143 
Maynard, G. D., 24, 257 
McDougall, William, 225, 257 
Medical profession, attitude toward 
marriage laws, 32 
and sex education, 175 
Mencken, H. L., 203 
Menopause, sexual interest during, 
77 
Menstruation, 173 
Mental defects in marriage, 30 
Mental deficiency among prostitutes, 
85 
deficiency and illegitimacy, 102 
development, completion of, 24 
Meyer, A. W., 113, 257 
Michelet, Jules, 197 
Mill, John Stuart, 158, 257 
Millionaires, families of, 134 
Minimum Wage, 208 
Miscarriages and abortions, 113 
due to syphilis, 93 
Mismating, fundamental 
family life, 250 
Monkeys, mating among, 10 


evil in 


264 


Monogamy, adaptation of mankind 
to, 4 
discussion of, 19 
future of, 253 
ideal of, 3 
Montessori Method, 228 
Morality, double standard of, 61, 
253 i 
“Morality, The New,” 11 
Mortality, infant, 205 
Mothercraft in women’s colleges, 181 
teaching of, 174 
Motherhood, endowment of, 213 
Mothers’ pensions, 214 
Motion pictures, 199, 203, 240 
Mudgett, Mildred D., 80, 257 
Music as career for women, 26 
Muslims, marriage among, 18 


N 


Napoleon I, 97, 106 
Nature study in schools, 170 
Negro mothers, young, 24 
prostitutes, 85 
Negroes, decline of fecundity among, 
99 
early marriage of, 68 
fecundity of, 95 
illegitimacy among, 100 
ravages of gonorrhea among, 98 
Neuroses due to delayed marriage, 
69 
New Zealand, fecundity in, 24 
Nicolson, Mrs. Malcolm H., 198 
Nomadism, 235 
Noyes, Hilda H., 214, 257 
Nuns, celibacy of, 54 


O 


Obstetrics, need for research in, 226 
Orphans in asylums, 42, 103 
O’Shea, M. V., 179, 257 


INDEX 


v 


Parenthood, quality of, in monogamy, 
pat 
training for, 178, 221 
voluntary, 151, 252 
Parker, Cornelia Stratton, 197, 257 
Parker, Valeria H., vii 
Parkes, A. S.,:17, 257 
Paul as champion of asceticism, 49, 51 
Peck, M. W., 60, 64, 257 
Pensions, mothers’, 214 
Peter Pan, 188 
Philby, HeSt) J.B: son coe 
Physical defects as bar to marriage, 31 
Pinkham, Lydia E., 141 
Pinney, J. B., vii 
Politics a factor in prostitution, 88 
Polyandry, discussion of, 17 
Polygamy, examination of, 17 
Polygyny, discussion of, 17 
Pompadour, Madame de, 201 
Popenoe, Paul, 17, 129, 137, 256, 257 
Population, movement of, in United 
States, 143 
problem, 141 
Pornography, 198 
Posture, adaptation to upright, 4 
Precocity of sex development, 190 
Pregnancy, benefit of, to woman, 36 
effect of, on free love, 12 
popular attitude toward, 197 
Priests, celibacy of, 49 
Promiscuity and Birth Control,141, 152 
attitude toward, 249 
examination of, 9, 21 
Prostitution and euphemy, 201 
as source of venereal diseases, 92 
children’s knowledge of, 171 
discussion of, 84 
expense of, 57 
passing of legalized, 248, 253 
relation to delayed marriage, 68 
responsible for incontinence, 62 


INDEX 


Pseudo-celibacy, 51 

Puberty, change in child at, 172 
hygiene of, 226 

Publicity of divorce proceedings, 81 


R 


Race as a factor in divorce, 80 
Rageot, Gaston, 197, 257 
Recreation, need for, 239 
Red Light Districts, 89, 161, 248 
Reformation, relationship to celibacy, 
o2 
Registration of births, 225 
of eugenic families, 225 
of finger-prints, 226 
of illegitimate births, 105 
Reproductive system, maturity of, 24 
Restrictions on marriage, 28 
Reuter, E. B:, 114,257 
Richmond, Mary E., 29, 256 
Robinson, W. J., 113, 257 
Rodents, mating among, 10 
Roman Catholic attitude on Birth 
Control, 148 
celibacy, 51 
Romantic love, 20, 75 
Rome, causes leading to downfall of, 
196, 203, 208, 251 
customs of ancient, 113, 197, 252 
Roosevelt, Theodore, 197 
Ross, E. A., 131 
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 42 


5 


San Francisco, prostitution in, 84 
Sanger, Margaret, 142, 149 
Savages, mating among, 9 
practice of abortion among, 114, 122 
romantic love among, 20 
School as a source of sex education, 
170 
influence of teachers in, 169 


265 


Scotland, fecundity of young wives in, 
24 
Seals, mating among, 10 
Segregation of defectives, 139, 237 
Selection, sexual, 23, 250 
and incontinence, 57 
Sex differentiation, 181, 187, 251 
education, 165 
quantitative nature of, 189 
Sexual selection, 23, 250 
selection and incontinence, 57 
maladjustment in marriage, 79 
Slee, Mrs. J. Noah H. (Margaret 
Sanger), 142, 149 
Sorokin, P., 134, 257 
Spencer, Anna Garlin, 19, 257 
Spencer, Herbert, 178, 186, 257 
Spinner, J. R., 114, 258 
Squirrels, mating among, 10 
Sterility and delayed marriage, 69 
due to gonorrhea, 15, 93, 96 
due to syphilis, 93 
general causes of, 95 
need for research on, 226 
Sterilization, eugenic, 138, 237 
Stopes, Marie C., 122 
Sumner, Francis B., 149 ° 
Superior families, definition of, 125 
Swinburne, J., 217, 258 
Syphilis and incontinence, 56 
as bar to marriage, 31 
frequency of, 91 


ie 


Taxation, bearing on family, 135, 215 

Teachers, influence on children of, 
169, 170 

Teasdale, Sara, 198 

Thomas, Hayward G., 8&5 

Thompson, Warren S., 231, 258 

Tissier, L., 113,258 

Treadway, Walter L., 85, 258 


266 


Trial marriage, 13, 79 

Tridon, André, 119, 258 
Tuberculosis as bar to marriage, 31 
Turkey, polygamy in, 19 


V 


Venereal diseases and delayed mar- 
riage, 69 
and incontinence, 56 
as bar to marriage, 31 
children’s knowledge of, 171 
discussion of, 91 
effect of, on free love, 12 
Viability of fetus, age of, 120 
Vice and virtue, 190 
Vitamins as cause of barrenness, 98 
Voluntary parenthood, 151, 252 


Ww 


Wage, family, 209, 253 
minimum, 208 

Waggaman, Mary T., 211, 258 

Weldon, L. O., 86, 257 


INDEX 


Wells, F. L., 60, 64, 257 
Wells, H. G., 15, 258 
Westermarck, Edward, 5 
Whales, mating among, 10 
Whetham, W. C. D., 170, 239, 258 
White, Stanford, 200 
Wilde, Oscar, 200 
Women, sexual nature of, 59 
workers, 230 
Women’s colleges, 
179, 181 
Work of women outside of home, 
228. 
organization of, in home, 227 
Worthington, George E., vii 


deficiencies of, 


x 


X-rays as cause of sterility, 96 


y, 


Yerkes, Robert M., 176, 258 
Young Men’s Christian Association, 
227 
Women’s Christian Association, 227 


Sans lache 





Sans Tache 


N THE “elder days of art’’ each artist or craftsman enjoyed 

| the privilege of independent creation. He carried through 

a process of manufacture from beginning to end. The scribe 

of the days before the printing press was such a craftsman. So 

was the printer in the days before the machine process. He stood 

or fell, as a craftsman, by the merit or demerit of his finished 
product. f 


Modern machine production has added much to the worker’s 
productivity and to his material welfare; but it has deprived him 
of the old creative distinctiveness. His work is merged in the 
work of the team, and lost sight of as something representing him 
and his personality. 


Many hands and minds contribute to the manufacture of a book, 
in this day of specialization. There are seven distinct major proc- 
esses in the making of a book: The type must first be set; by the 
monotype method, there are two processes, the “keyboarding”’ of 
the MS and the casting of the type from the perforated paper rolls 
thus produced. Formulas and other intricate work must be hand- 
set; then the whole brought together (‘“composed’’) in its true 
order, made into pages and forms. ‘The results must be checked 
by proof reading at each stage. Then comes the “make-ready” 
and press-run and finally the binding into volumes. 


All of these processes, except that of binding into cloth or leather 
covers, are carried on under our roof. 


The motto of the Waverly Press is Sans Tache. Our ideal is to 
manufacture books “‘without blemish’’—worthy books, worthily 


printed, with worthy typography—books to which we shall be 
proud to attach our imprint, made by craftsmen who are willing 
to accept open responsibility for their work, and who are entitled 
to credit for creditable performance. 


The printing craftsman of today is quite as much a craftsman as 
his predecessor. There is quite as much discrimination between 
poor work and good. Weare of the opinion that the individuality 
of the worker should not be wholly lost. ‘The members of our staff 
who have contributed their skill of hand and brain to this volume 
are: 


Composing Room: Nathan Miller, Ray Kauffman, Austin Uhland, Andrew 
Rassa, James Jackson, William Sanders, Edgar Simmons, Arthur Baker, 
Howard Fogle, Herbert Leitch, John Krantz, Charles Wyatt, Edward Rice, 
George Moss, Walter Phillips, Richard King, Henry Shea, Theodore Nilson. 
Keyboard: Minnie Foard, Harry Susemih!, Helen Twardowicz. 


Casters: Kenneth Brown, Ernest Wann, Mahlon Robinson, Charles Aher, 
George Smith, Frank Malanowsky, Martin Griffen, Henry Lee, Frederick Wall. 


Cutter: H. S. Brown. 

Folder: Laurence Krug, John Watson. 

Proof Room: Sarah Katzin, Alice Reuter, Mary Reed, Ruth Treischman, 
Lucille Bull, Ethel Strasinger, Dorothy Strasinger, Audrey Tanner, Angeline 


Eifert, Lillian Gilland, Geraldine Browne, George Southworth, Ida Zimmerman. 


Press: August Hildebrandt, Hugh Gardner, Henry Eckert, Andrew Becker. 


Books on Social Science and 


Eugenics 
SOCIAL PsycHoLtocy—Dunlap.. ok ae $4.00 
ESSENTIALS OF PSyCHIATRY—Henry....... phi is 
PUBLIGUILEALTHALAM Gos Lovey to: see) ete ces 4.50 


EUGENICS, GENETICS AND THE FaAmity, I. 
EUGENICS IN RACE AND STATE, I]—Daven- 
POTL ONG NOLES ATE OEE ee Nahe CR 11.00 


EXHIBITS BOOK OF THE SECOND INTERNA- 
TIONAL CONGRESS OF EUGENICS—Laugh- 


Lt GNA OLE SO VS ue ce ee ee ae 3.00 
AN APPROACH TO SocIAL MEDICINE—Dun- 

PR BARE AS AM MAR iy el 4.00 
INTELLIGENCE AND IMMIGRATION — Kirk- 

DAU TCR ee giiaiele ems hisree ite eae 4.00 
MONGREL VIRGINIANS—Estabrook and Mc- 

Dori gle. Ver wee whee ie. ae a 3.00 
THe INHERITANCE OF MENTAL DISEASES— 

MAVEISOR a TS oes Ue 5.00 


Send for a complete catalogue 


THE WILLIAMS & WILKINS COMPANY 
Publishers of Scientific Books and Periodicals 
BALTIMORE, U. S. A. 





. 


Date Due 












































HQ734 .P81 
The conservation of the family, 


Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Library 


| | | 


1 10712 00025 4542 








SCRNAT BEE She oe ote Et oe Ake ES BT ot oe pt gt ene od Bh 


at 





er 


ssprpests 





